Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves Ralph M. Benfield's appeal against the dismissal of his complaint to collect on a promissory note from The Everest Venture Group, Inc. and Brian Abeles. Originally, the trial court dismissed Benfield's complaint, citing that the statute of limitations had expired, as the default was claimed to have occurred in 1991. However, the appellate court overturned this decision, finding that partial payments made between 1992 and 1995 tolled the statute of limitations under section 95.051(1)(f) of the Florida Statutes. This section allows for the tolling of the limitations period due to partial payments on a written obligation. The appellate court clarified that this tolling applies even when an acceleration clause is present in the promissory note, as such a clause does not alter the tolling effects of partial payments. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, with Judges Whatley and Casanueva concurring, noting that the statute's clarity likely explains the absence of precedent on this matter.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Florida Statutes Section 95.051(1)(f)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The statute's provision for tolling the limitations period applies to promissory notes, even if the note contains an acceleration clause.
Reasoning: The appellate court determined that section 95.051(1) applies to promissory notes irrespective of acceleration clauses, concluding that the partial payments indeed tolled the limitations period.
Effect of Acceleration Clause on Limitations Periodsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The presence of an acceleration clause does not negate the tolling effect of partial payments under Florida law.
Reasoning: The defendants contended this provision did not apply because the acceleration clause in the note made the entire debt due upon default.
Statute of Limitations and Promissory Notessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the statute of limitations was tolled by partial payments made on the promissory note, reversing the trial court's dismissal.
Reasoning: The appellate court finds that partial payments made on the note tolled the limitations period, leading to a reversal of the dismissal.