Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Dutra v. Kaplan
Citations: 137 So. 3d 1190; 2014 WL 1491639; 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 5557Docket: No. 3D13-647
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; April 16, 2014; Florida; State Appellate Court
Jacqueline Dutra appealed a summary final judgment favoring Dr. Chance Kaplan, which was based on the trial court's determination that her breach of contract claim filed in 2009 was time-barred. The appellate court reversed this ruling, finding that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until 2009, contrary to Kaplan's assertion that it started in 2004. The relevant agreement, made in 2002, outlined how the property would be handled should the parties no longer reside together. In March 2004, the parties decided to separate, and Kaplan opted to purchase Dutra's interest in the house. A dispute arose regarding the payment amount Kaplan owed Dutra under the agreement. Kaplan informed Dutra in April 2004 that he would not pay her the claimed amount unless she accepted his offer. Kaplan lived in the house without making any payments until April 2009, when Dutra filed her lawsuit. Kaplan contended that his April 2004 statement constituted a repudiation that triggered the statute of limitations, asserting that the five-year period for breach of contract began at that time. The appellate court disagreed, stating that Kaplan's statement was an anticipatory breach, which allowed Dutra three options: to rescind the contract, treat the repudiation as a breach, or wait for the time of performance to bring suit. Dutra chose to wait, allowing the full five years for compliance under the agreement. Her claim thus accrued when Kaplan failed to pay, making her 2009 lawsuit timely. The court also rejected Kaplan's argument that Dutra changed her position by ceasing mortgage payments and failing to pay taxes after moving out, emphasizing that the agreement did not impose such obligations on her post-separation. The appellate court concluded that the trial court erred in ruling the statute of limitations had expired and remanded the case for further proceedings.