facts constituting defense in Florida

2024“A motion to dismiss a complaint based on the expiration of the statute of limitations should only be granted ‘in extraordinary circumstances where the facts constituting the defense affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint and establish conclusively that the statute of limitations bars the action as a matter of law.’” Alexander v. Suncoast Builders, Inc., 837 So. 2d 1056, 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (quoting in part Rigby v. Liles, 505 So. 2d 598, 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)).

2012We start from the premise that “only in extraordinary circumstances where the facts constituting the defense affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint and establish conclusively that the statute of limitations bars the action as a matter of law, should a motion to dismiss on this ground be granted.” Rigby v. Liles, 505 So.2d 598, 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

2024“A motion to dismiss a complaint based on the expiration of the statute of limitations should only be granted ‘in extraordinary circumstances where the facts constituting the defense affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint and establish conclusively that the statute of limitations bars the action as a matter of law.’” Alexander v. Suncoast Builders, Inc., 837 So. 2d 1056, 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (quoting in part Rigby v. Liles, 505 So. 2d 598, 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)).

2009As we stated in Alexander v. Suncoast Builders, Inc., 837 So.2d 1056 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002): A motion to dismiss a complaint based on the expiration of the statute of limitations should only be granted “in extraordinary circumstances where the facts constituting the defense affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint and establish conclusively that the statute of limitations bars the action as a matter of law.” Id. at 1057 (quoting Rigby v. Liles, 505 So.2d 598, 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)).

2021However, “[a] motion to dismiss may be granted on statute of limitations grounds ‘where the facts constituting the defense affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint and establish conclusively that the statute of limitations bars the action as a matter of law.’” Aquatic Plan Mgmt., Inc. v. Paramount Eng’g, Inc., 977 So. 2d 600, 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting Bott v. City of Marathon, 949 So. 2d 295, 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)).

2007As for American's alternative statute of limitations argument, a motion to dismiss may be granted on statute of limitations grounds "`where the facts constituting the defense affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint and establish conclusively that the statute of limitations bars the action as a matter of law.'" Bott v. City of Marathon, 949 So.2d 295, 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quoting Alexander v. Suncoast Builders, Inc., 837 So.2d 1056, 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)).

2002A motion to dismiss a complaint based on the expiration of the statute of limitations should only be granted "in extraordinary circumstances where the facts constituting the defense affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint and establish conclusively that the statute of limitations bars the action as a matter of law." Rigby v. Liles, 505 So.2d 598, 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); see also Brickell Biscayne Corp. v. Morse/Diesel, Inc., 683 So.2d 168, 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), review denied sub nom, Arquitectonica Int'l Corp. v. Brickell Biscayne Corp., 695 So.2d 698 (Fla.1997); Khalaf v. City of

2000Thus, "`only in extraordinary circumstances where the facts constituting the defense affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint and establish conclusively that the statute of limitations bars the action as a matter of law, should a motion to dismiss on this ground be granted.'" Khalaf v. City of Holly Hill, 652 So.2d 1246, 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (quoting Rigby v. Liles, 505 So.2d 598, 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)).

2019Grove Isle Ass’n, Inc. v. Grove Isle Associates, LLLP, 137 So. 3d 1081, 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).

2017“However, where the facts constituting the defense affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint and establish conclusively that the defense bars the action as a matter of law, a motion to dismiss raising the defense is properly granted.” Id.

2009Ass’n v. McCoy, 972 So.2d 230, 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

2008Where the defect is latent, the limitation period "runs from the time the defect is discovered or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence." Id. at 232 (quoting § 95.11(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2006)). "[O]nly in extraordinary circumstances where the facts constituting the defense affirmatively appear on the *1245 face of the complaint and establish conclusively that the statute of limitations bars the action as a matter of law, should a motion to dismiss on this ground be granted." Id. at 231 (quoting Rigby v. Liles, 505 So.2d 598, 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)).

1989Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(d); Evans v. Parker, 440 So.2d 640, 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Adams v. Knabb Turpentine Co., 435 So.2d 944, 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

1985Adams v. *814 Knabb Turpentine Co., 435 So.2d 944 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

1986Johnson v. Johnson Chrysler/Plymouth, Inc., 389 So.2d 690, 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

1983Johnson v. Johnson Chrysler/Plymouth, Inc., 389 So.2d 690 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Williams v. Covell, 236 So.2d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970).

2021However, “[a] motion to dismiss may be granted on statute of limitations grounds ‘where the facts constituting the defense affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint and establish conclusively that the statute of limitations bars the action as a matter of law.’” Aquatic Plan Mgmt., Inc. v. Paramount Eng’g, Inc., 977 So. 2d 600, 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting Bott v. City of Marathon, 949 So. 2d 295, 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)).

2019Goodwin v. Sphatt, 114 So. 3d 1092, 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (citation omitted).

2005See Fla. Real Estate Comm'n v. Harris, 134 So.2d 785 , 788 n. 7 (Fla.1961) ("`A judgment or decree unreversed is conclusive upon parties and estops them from setting up in a new suit brought to annul or set it aside, any matter of defense of which the parties could have availed themselves in the original proceeding, the evidence of the facts constituting the defense having been known to the parties in due time.'") (citation omitted). *524 In Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States v. McKeithen, 130 Fla. 568 , 178 So. 127, 128-29 (1938), the supreme court applied the narrow transactio

2005See Fla. Real Estate Comm'n v. Harris, 134 So.2d 785 , 788 n. 7 (Fla.1961) ("`A judgment or decree unreversed is conclusive upon parties and estops them from setting up in a new suit brought to annul or set it aside, any matter of defense of which the parties could have availed themselves in the original proceeding, the evidence of the facts constituting the defense having been known to the parties in due time.'") (citation omitted). *524 In Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States v. McKeithen, 130 Fla. 568 , 178 So. 127, 128-29 (1938), the supreme court applied the narrow transactio

2005See Fla. Real Estate Comm'n v. Harris, 134 So.2d 785 , 788 n. 7 (Fla.1961) ("`A judgment or decree unreversed is conclusive upon parties and estops them from setting up in a new suit brought to annul or set it aside, any matter of defense of which the parties could have availed themselves in the original proceeding, the evidence of the facts constituting the defense having been known to the parties in due time.'") (citation omitted). *524 In Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States v. McKeithen, 130 Fla. 568 , 178 So. 127, 128-29 (1938), the supreme court applied the narrow transactio

2002A motion to dismiss a complaint based on the expiration of the statute of limitations should only be granted "in extraordinary circumstances where the facts constituting the defense affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint and establish conclusively that the statute of limitations bars the action as a matter of law." Rigby v. Liles, 505 So.2d 598, 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); see also Brickell Biscayne Corp. v. Morse/Diesel, Inc., 683 So.2d 168, 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), review denied sub nom, Arquitectonica Int'l Corp. v. Brickell Biscayne Corp., 695 So.2d 698 (Fla.1997); Khalaf v. City of

2002A motion to dismiss a complaint based on the expiration of the statute of limitations should only be granted "in extraordinary circumstances where the facts constituting the defense affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint and establish conclusively that the statute of limitations bars the action as a matter of law." Rigby v. Liles, 505 So.2d 598, 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); see also Brickell Biscayne Corp. v. Morse/Diesel, Inc., 683 So.2d 168, 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), review denied sub nom, Arquitectonica Int'l Corp. v. Brickell Biscayne Corp., 695 So.2d 698 (Fla.1997); Khalaf v. City of

1989See Lago West 84, Inc. v. Homac Barnes, Inc., 486 So.2d 64 (Fla.4th DCA 1986).

1989Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(d); Evans v. Parker, 440 So.2d 640, 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Adams v. Knabb Turpentine Co., 435 So.2d 944, 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).