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.
Aprile v. Suncoast Schools Federal Credit Union
Citations: 596 So. 2d 1290; 19 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 253; 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4805; 1992 WL 86325Docket: No. 91-02227
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; April 29, 1992; Florida; State Appellate Court
Jimmy V. Aprile, Jr., both individually and as trustee, contests a final summary judgment favoring Suncoast Schools Federal Credit Union, which has been reversed. Aprile and his ex-wife, Melvine M. Aprile, opened a joint money market account in 1986 with a trust declaration for their benefit. Melvine redeemed this account without Aprile's consent, forged his signature on a redemption check, and deposited the funds into her accounts at Suncoast. In 1990, Aprile sued Suncoast and Vanguard for conversion of the negotiable instrument, following which Vanguard was removed from the suit. Suncoast sought summary judgment, claiming the action was barred by statutes of limitations under Florida law. The trial court granted this motion. Aprile argued that the statute of limitations defense based on subsection 674.406(4) was invalid since he did not receive an account statement with the converted instrument and that a factual dispute existed regarding the start of the limitations period under subsection 95.11(3)(k). The court agreed with Aprile regarding the first point, clarifying that the statute of limitations only applies if the customer receives an account statement with the contested items. Since Suncoast did not provide such a statement reflecting Melvine’s transaction, the limitations did not apply. Moreover, the court emphasized that the issues at hand involved the payment of a forged indorsement and not the redemption itself. Suncoast can still pursue factual defenses against the conversion claim under subsection 673.419(3), despite not succeeding on the statute of limitations defense under subsection 674.406(4). The appellate court agrees with the appellant regarding the statute of limitations defense under subsection 95.11(3)(k), determining that the existence of a material fact dispute regarding the start of the limitations period precludes summary judgment. The statute allows four years to file an action not based on a written instrument, with both parties acknowledging that the limitations period begins when the appellant discovered or should have discovered the forgery. The timing of this discovery is a factual question, supported by case law. The appellant claims to have learned of the forgery three years post-conversion, asserting no prior knowledge was possible, while Suncoast contends the appellant should have discovered it when he became aware of the funds' redemption in April 1986. Due to this dispute over when the limitations period commenced, summary judgment cannot be granted. Consequently, the court reverses the final summary judgment in the appellant's conversion action and remands the case for trial. Judges Schoonover and Campbell concur with the decision.