Florida Statute 95.051 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title VIII
LIMITATIONS

Chapter 95
LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS; ADVERSE POSSESSION

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 95.051

95.051 When limitations tolled.—

(1) The running of the time under any statute of limitations except ss. 95.281, 95.35, and 95.36 is tolled by:

(a) Absence from the state of the person to be sued.

(b) Use by the person to be sued of a false name that is unknown to the person entitled to sue so that process cannot be served on the person to be sued.

(d) The adjudicated incapacity, before the cause of action accrued, of the person entitled to sue. In any event, the action must be begun within 7 years after the act, event, or occurrence giving rise to the cause of action.

(e) Voluntary payments by the alleged father of the child in paternity actions during the time of the payments.

(f) The payment of any part of the principal or interest of any obligation or liability founded on a written instrument.

(g) The pendency of any arbitral proceeding pertaining to a dispute that is the subject of the action.

(h) The period of an intervening bankruptcy tolls the expiration period of a tax certificate under s. 197.482 and any proceeding or process under chapter 197.

(i) The minority or previously adjudicated incapacity of the person entitled to sue during any period of time in which a parent, guardian, or guardian ad litem does not exist, has an interest adverse to the minor or incapacitated person, or is adjudicated to be incapacitated to sue; except with respect to the statute of limitations for a claim for medical malpractice as provided in s. 95.11. In any event, the action must be begun within 7 years after the act, event, or occurrence giving rise to the cause of action.

Paragraphs (a)-(c) shall not apply if service of process or service by publication can be made in a manner sufficient to confer jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. This section shall not be construed to limit the ability of any person to initiate an action within 30 days after the lifting of an automatic stay issued in a bankruptcy action as is provided in 11 U.S.C. s. 108(c).

(2) A disability or other reason does not toll the running of any statute of limitations except those specified in this section, s. 95.091, the Florida Probate Code, or the Florida Guardianship Law.

History.—s. 16, Nov. 10, 1828; ss. 14, 17, ch. 1869, 1872; RS 1284, 1285; GS 1715, 1716; RGS 2928, 2929; CGL 4648, 4649; s. 4, ch. 74-382; s. 2, ch. 75-234; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 3, ch. 86-266; s. 1, ch. 89-26; s. 1, ch. 90-105; s. 519, ch. 95-147; s. 1, ch. 2011-151.

Note.—Former ss. 95.05, 95.07.

F.S. 95.051 on Google Scholar

F.S. 95.051 on CourtListener

Amendments to 95.051

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 95.051

Total Results: 105

Major League Baseball v. Morsani

790 So. 2d 1071, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 465, 2001 Fla. LEXIS 1401, 2001 WL 776662

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 12, 2001 | Docket: 249004

Cited 163 times | Published

court certified the following question: Does section 95.051, Florida Statutes (1993), prohibit the application

Landers v. Milton

370 So. 2d 368

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 19, 1979 | Docket: 1386566

Cited 108 times | Published

inapplicability of the tolling provisions of section 95.051, Florida Statutes (1977). They argue that once

Hearndon v. Graham

767 So. 2d 1179, 2000 WL 1288688

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 14, 2000 | Docket: 2487445

Cited 99 times | Published

the running thereof subsequent to accrual. See § 95.051, Fla. Stat. (1987). To that end, the Legislature

STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH, ETC. v. West

378 So. 2d 1220

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 1979 | Docket: 1795118

Cited 32 times | Published

relating to the determination of paternity." Section 95.051(1)(e) provides, "The running of the time under

Hankey v. Yarian

755 So. 2d 93, 2000 WL 283692

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 16, 2000 | Docket: 1699332

Cited 25 times | Published

See Sheffield, 562 So.2d at 386. For example, section 95.051, Florida Statutes (1997), provides generally

New Lenox Industries, Inc. v. Fenton

510 F. Supp. 2d 893, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32659, 2007 WL 1303035

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: May 3, 2007 | Docket: 2452472

Cited 22 times | Published

are valid reasons for tolling under Fla. Stat. § 95.051(1)(a) or for tolling of the statute of limitations

Florida Dhrs v. Sap

835 So. 2d 1091

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 27, 2002 | Docket: 1643385

Cited 21 times | Published

question of whether the tolling proscription in section 95.051 applies to equitable estoppel.[7] There, Major

Totura & Co., Inc. v. Williams

754 So. 2d 671, 2000 WL 183308

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 17, 2000 | Docket: 431192

Cited 20 times | Published

suggest that any of the tolling provisions in section 95.051, Florida Statutes (1991), pertain to this case

S.A.P. v. State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

704 So. 2d 583, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10279

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 3, 1997 | Docket: 64778338

Cited 20 times | Published

HRS’s negligence in the supervision of S.A.P. Section 95.051(l)(h) Not Applicable Finally, we cannot agree

Larson & Larson, P.A. v. TSE Industries, Inc.

22 So. 3d 36, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 591, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 1868, 2009 WL 3644163

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 5, 2009 | Docket: 1432532

Cited 19 times | Published

decision in Kelley but also on the text of section 95.051, Florida Statutes (2002), which restricts the

Musculoskeletal Institute v. Parham

745 So. 2d 946

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 11, 1999 | Docket: 352781

Cited 16 times | Published

effect of statutes of repose. For example, section 95.051 is titled "[w]hen limitations tolled." Within

Florida Department of Insurance v. Blackburn (In Re Blackburn)

209 B.R. 4, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 343, 1997 Bankr. LEXIS 694, 1997 WL 274785

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: May 20, 1997 | Docket: 1431353

Cited 16 times | Published

reasoned that, because Florida's tolling statute, Section 95.051, Florida Statutes, enumerates the specific

In Re Southeast Banking Corp.

855 F. Supp. 353, 1994 WL 261378

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: May 3, 1994 | Docket: 1801110

Cited 16 times | Published

state law). Florida's tolling statute, Fla.Stat. § 95.051 (West Supp.1994), enumerates the specific circumstances

Doe v. Dorsey

683 So. 2d 614, 1996 WL 672986

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 22, 1996 | Docket: 279200

Cited 13 times | Published

tolled until a minor plaintiff reaches majority. Section 95.051(1)(h). Although plaintiff urges that section

Arthur v. Unicare Health Facilities, Inc.

602 So. 2d 596, 1992 WL 135047

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 19, 1992 | Docket: 161001

Cited 12 times | Published

(1987), and is not limited or controlled by section 95.051, Florida Statutes (1987) (when limitations

Glantzis v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co.

573 So. 2d 1049, 1991 WL 11651

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 6, 1991 | Docket: 570353

Cited 12 times | Published

statute of limitations was tolled pursuant to section 95.051(1)(g), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986), when

Elaine Hess, etc. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

175 So. 3d 687, 40 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 188, 2015 Fla. LEXIS 623, 2015 WL 1472319

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 2, 2015 | Docket: 2646455

Cited 11 times | Published

Fla. Stat.); tolling exceptions provided in section 95.051(l)(a)-(i), Florida Statutes (2013); and “elsewhere

ABC Liquors, Inc. v. Centimark Corp.

967 So. 2d 1053, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 17332, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2598

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 2, 2007 | Docket: 1408401

Cited 11 times | Published

Centimark take into account the provision of section 95.051(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1996), which tolls

Swartzman v. Harlan

535 So. 2d 605, 1988 WL 133917

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 16, 1988 | Docket: 1711119

Cited 11 times | Published

rule adopted by prior case law by creating section 95.051 which provides for specific instances that

Ryan v. Lobo De Gonzalez

841 So. 2d 510, 2003 WL 468482

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 26, 2003 | Docket: 365189

Cited 10 times | Published

favor of Major League Baseball holding that section 95.051, Florida Statutes (1993),[4] barred Morsani's

Putnam Berkley Group, Inc. v. Dinin

734 So. 2d 532, 1999 WL 333143

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 26, 1999 | Docket: 2516530

Cited 10 times | Published

available: *534 "we find that by enacting section 95.051 in 1975, the legislature specifically set forth

Lopez v. Geico Casualty Co.

968 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 2013 WL 4854492, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132020

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Sep 5, 2013 | Docket: 65993934

Cited 9 times | Published

id. The *1207legislative intent expressed in Section 95.051 lent further support to that conclusion, as

In Re Chiquita Brands Intern., Inc. Alien Tort

690 F. Supp. 2d 1296, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9488, 2010 WL 432426

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 4, 2010 | Docket: 406815

Cited 9 times | Published

not specified by the legislature. See Fla. Stat. § 95.051. Fraudulent concealment of the identity of the

Ross v. Jim Adams Ford, Inc.

871 So. 2d 312, 2004 WL 1057655

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 7, 2004 | Docket: 1300677

Cited 9 times | Published

the statute of limitations for these claims. See § 95.051(2), Fla. Stat. (1993) (stating, "No disability

New York State Dept. of Taxation v. Patafio

829 So. 2d 314, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15566, 2002 WL 31396460

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 25, 2002 | Docket: 1733619

Cited 9 times | Published

this case, is that the tolling provisions of section 95.051 prevent the accrual of a cause of action, or

Greene v. Seminole Elec. Co-Op., Inc.

701 So. 2d 646, 1997 WL 710317

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 14, 1997 | Docket: 1736913

Cited 9 times | Published

limitations period are those enumerated in section 95.051(2), see, Fulton County Administrator v. Sullivan

Sap v. State, Dhrs

704 So. 2d 583

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 3, 1997 | Docket: 1354879

Cited 9 times | Published

HRS's negligence in the supervision of S.A.P. Section 95.051(1)(h) Not Applicable Finally, we cannot agree

Haskins v. City of Ft. Lauderdale

898 So. 2d 1120, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 4371, 2005 WL 714049

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 30, 2005 | Docket: 1732215

Cited 8 times | Published

tolled during the arbitration proceedings. Section 95.051(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2004), provides that

Houck Corp. v. New River, Ltd., Pasco

900 So. 2d 601, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1314, 2005 WL 292210

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 9, 2005 | Docket: 1514224

Cited 8 times | Published

mortgage terminates and is no longer enforceable. Section 95.051, Florida Statutes (2002), sets forth the times

HOSP. CONSTRUCTORS LTD. EX REL. LIFEMARK HOSPITALS OF FLORIDA, INC. v. Lefor

749 So. 2d 546, 2000 WL 6061

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 7, 2000 | Docket: 1690324

Cited 8 times | Published

the time under any statute of limitations. See § 95.051(1)(f), Fla. Stat. (1990). See *548 Chaplin v.

Moorey v. Eytchison & Hoppes, Inc.

338 So. 2d 558

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 20, 1976 | Docket: 1511857

Cited 8 times | Published

periods are tolled were being established in Section 95.051 as part of the same legislation, it was logical

Wiand v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

86 F. Supp. 3d 1316, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15146, 2015 WL 518826

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 9, 2015 | Docket: 64300490

Cited 7 times | Published

statute of limitations under Florida law. Fla. Stat. § 95.051. Neither delayed discovery nor equitable tolling

Morsani v. Major League Baseball

739 So. 2d 610, 1999 WL 172627

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 31, 1999 | Docket: 1293964

Cited 7 times | Published

a matter of law. The trial court found that section 95.051, Florida Statutes (1993),[1] which enumerates

Dudas v. Dade County

385 So. 2d 1144

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 8, 1980 | Docket: 1395207

Cited 7 times | Published

extended by payments made on account pursuant to Section 95.051(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1975). We disagree

SOUTH MOTOR CO. v. Doktorczyk

957 So. 2d 1215, 2007 WL 1217922

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 25, 2007 | Docket: 1679102

Cited 6 times | Published

part payment tolling exception contained in section 95.051(1)(f) was applicable to this statutory claim

Monahan v. Davis

781 So. 2d 436, 2001 WL 194890

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 28, 2001 | Docket: 1294080

Cited 6 times | Published

]" Id. at 1185. The court observed that in section 95.051, Florida Statutes (1987), the legislature limited

Hearndon v. Graham

710 So. 2d 87, 1998 WL 169753

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 14, 1998 | Docket: 2532162

Cited 6 times | Published

[3] The Sullivan court ruled that, because section 95.051(2), Florida Statutes (1985) "specifically precludes

Lloyd v. Farkash

476 So. 2d 305, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2311

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 9, 1985 | Docket: 1277750

Cited 6 times | Published

limitation while the right is suspended. Fla. Stat. § 95.051 (1983). Second, civil rights are not automatically

City of Brooksville v. HERNANDO CTY.

424 So. 2d 846

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 1, 1982 | Docket: 1708136

Cited 6 times | Published

to the 1975 enactment of subsection (2) of section 95.051, which states that "no disability or other

Childers v. Cape Canaveral Hosp., Inc.

898 So. 2d 973, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 2691, 2005 WL 497139

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 4, 2005 | Docket: 1447812

Cited 5 times | Published

454.[4] HB 43 contained a proposal to amend section 95.051, Florida Statutes to toll the statute of limitations

Grantham v. Blount, Inc.

683 So. 2d 538, 1996 WL 546313

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 27, 1996 | Docket: 1515031

Cited 5 times | Published

any statute of limitations." § 95.051(2), Fla. Stat. (1993). Section 95.051, Florida Statutes (1993), provides

Charley Toppino & Sons v. SEAWATCH

658 So. 2d 922

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 10, 1994 | Docket: 439645

Cited 5 times | Published

unable to assert his or her cause of action. See § 95.051, Fla. Stat. (1991). When the condominium association

United States v. Olavarrieta

632 F. Supp. 895

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Apr 9, 1986 | Docket: 2113902

Cited 5 times | Published

the Third Party Defendant is in violation of F.S. 95.051(c) by not been [sic] registered as the person

Chaplin v. Estate of Cooke

432 So. 2d 778

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 10, 1983 | Docket: 1677619

Cited 5 times | Published

through case law. In 1974 the legislature enacted § 95.051, Fla. Stat., which provided that the running of

Fernon v. Itkin

476 F. Supp. 1, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17396

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 11, 1977 | Docket: 1598357

Cited 5 times | Published

Fla. 15, 67 So. 226 (1915); see also Fla.Stat. § 95.051 (1975). Defendant Itkin's affidavit (filed September

Intern. Broth., Etc. v. United Ass'n, Etc.

341 So. 2d 1005

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 24, 1976 | Docket: 1393378

Cited 5 times | Published

of stale claims. Even in the provisions of F.S. § 95.051, enacted after the events involved in this case

D.H. v. Adept Community Services, Inc.

271 So. 3d 870

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 1, 2018 | Docket: 8119865

Cited 4 times | Published

has not been adjudicated to be incapacitated. § 95.051(1)(h), Fla. Stat. (2006).5 The Twins argued their

Brown v. Nationscredit Financial Services Corp.

32 So. 3d 661, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 2911, 2010 WL 786246

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 10, 2010 | Docket: 1197034

Cited 4 times | Published

In 1974, however, the legislature enacted section 95.051, Florida Statutes, which provided for a set

Cuillo v. McCoy

810 So. 2d 1061, 2002 WL 423474

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 20, 2002 | Docket: 1224105

Cited 4 times | Published

by Chamberlain. Appellees argue that under section 95.051(1)(f), Florida Statutes, the statute of limitation

Allapattah Services, Inc. v. Exxon Corp.

188 F.R.D. 667, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13574, 1999 WL 691903

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Aug 10, 1999 | Docket: 66010438

Cited 4 times | Published

bar except for those circumstances enumerated in § 95.051).9 Contingencies for Tolling the Statutes of

Walls v. Armour Pharmaceutical Co.

832 F. Supp. 1467, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10905, 1993 WL 299632

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Jul 19, 1993 | Docket: 285015

Cited 4 times | Published

tolled during a plaintiff's minority. Fla.Stat. § 95.051. [3] See also Durden v. American Hosp. Supply

Woodburn v. Florida Department of Children & Family Services

854 F. Supp. 2d 1184, 2011 WL 7661425, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154858

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Dec 1, 2011 | Docket: 65980458

Cited 3 times | Published

or guardian ad litem does not exist. Fla. Stat. § 95.051(l)(d), (h) (2011). Even where tolling applies

Meyer v. Meyer

25 So. 3d 39, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 18400, 2009 WL 4282646

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 2, 2009 | Docket: 1661718

Cited 3 times | Published

specific performance. Citing the tolling statute, section 95.051, Florida Statutes (2005), the trial court dismissed

Palmer v. McKesson Corp.

7 So. 3d 561, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1551, 2009 WL 485045

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 27, 2009 | Docket: 1655036

Cited 3 times | Published

limitations applicable to civil actions found in section 95.051. Having held that the plaintiff bears the burden

Lanoue v. Rizk

987 So. 2d 724, 2008 WL 2511450

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 25, 2008 | Docket: 1396265

Cited 3 times | Published

2003, when the last late payment was made. See § 95.051(f), Fla. Stat. (2003).[1] On that analysis, the

Jones v. MTLC Investment, Ltd. (In Re Hill)

332 B.R. 835, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 436, 2005 Bankr. LEXIS 2129, 2005 WL 2483338

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Sep 21, 2005 | Docket: 1574319

Cited 3 times | Published

899 So.2d 396, 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). [7] § 95.051, Fla. Stat., does not prohibit the application

HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF FLORIDA v. Hillman

906 So. 2d 1094, 2004 WL 3024709

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 10, 2004 | Docket: 1774951

Cited 3 times | Published

the expression of legislative intent found in section 95.051, Florida Statutes (2001), and the deference

Simonetti Development, LTD. v. Hillard Development Corp. (In Re Hillard Development Corp.)

238 B.R. 857, 42 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1017, 52 Fed. R. Serv. 1028, 1999 Bankr. LEXIS 953

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. | Filed: Aug 4, 1999 | Docket: 1638560

Cited 3 times | Published

instrument (id. § 95.11((2)(b))as tolled by id. § 95.051(1)(f)) (statute of limitations for action on written

Schrank v. Pearlman

683 So. 2d 559, 1996 WL 603645

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 23, 1996 | Docket: 2525557

Cited 3 times | Published

matters which would avoid the limitations bar. See § 95.051, Fla. Stat (1989). [2] The bus ticket was designated

In Re Whittaker

177 B.R. 360, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 289, 1994 Bankr. LEXIS 2105, 1994 WL 738829

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Florida | Filed: Aug 12, 1994 | Docket: 1804980

Cited 3 times | Published

are being made on an installment note. Fla.Stat. § 95.051(f). Upon accrual of a cause of action, e.g. defaulting

SOUTHERN SPECIALTIES, INC. v. FARMHOUSE TOMATOES, INC

259 So. 3d 869

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 21, 2018 | Docket: 8221306

Cited 2 times | Published

tolled the statute of limitations pursuant to section 95.051(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Farmhouse filed

In re Engle Cases

45 F. Supp. 3d 1351, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133727, 2014 WL 4542998

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Sep 12, 2014 | Docket: 64297185

Cited 2 times | Published

cases base their reasoning on Florida Statutes section 95.051, which provides that “[t]he running of the

Clark v. Estate of Elrod

61 So. 3d 416, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 4498, 2011 WL 1198272

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 1, 2011 | Docket: 60300474

Cited 2 times | Published

Further, we fail to find any exception under section 95.051 that would toll the statute of limitations

Ramirez v. McCravy

4 So. 3d 692, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1260, 2009 WL 383578

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 18, 2009 | Docket: 1216279

Cited 2 times | Published

respect to" the timely filing of his lawsuit. Section 95.051, Florida Statutes (2006), enumerated eight

Foxworth Ex Rel. Estate of Durden v. Kia Motors

377 F. Supp. 2d 1196, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18587, 2005 WL 1690601

District Court, N.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 30, 2005 | Docket: 2574291

Cited 2 times | Published

than those specifically enumerated in Fla. Stat. § 95.051. See Hearndon v. Graham, 767 So.2d 1179 (Fla.2000)

Florida Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. S.A.P.

835 So. 2d 1091, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 980, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 2458

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 27, 2002 | Docket: 64820153

Cited 2 times | Published

could have filed suit on her behalf’; and (3) section 95.051(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1993), is not applicable

USX Corp. v. Schilbe

535 So. 2d 719, 1989 WL 191

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 6, 1989 | Docket: 2573062

Cited 2 times | Published

that none of the tolling grounds contained in section 95.051 is involved in the present matter because of

Doe No. 3 v. Nur-Ul-Islam Academy, Inc.

217 So. 3d 85, 2017 WL 1076928, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3777

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 22, 2017 | Docket: 60265900

Cited 1 times | Published

longer good law, because the legislature amended section 95.051, Florida Statutes, in 1990, six years after

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Etc. v. Beauvais

188 So. 3d 938, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5584

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 13, 2016 | Docket: 3053146

Cited 1 times | Published

tolls the five-year statute of limitations. Section ,95.051(2) limits statute of limitations tolling to

American Home Assurance Co. v. Weaver Aggregate Transport, Inc.

990 F. Supp. 2d 1254, 2013 WL 7659924

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Dec 26, 2013 | Docket: 65996623

Cited 1 times | Published

specific period of time. . Although Fla. Stat. § 95.051 lists the bases for tolling statutes of limitations

Rubio v. Archdiocese of Miami, Inc.

114 So. 3d 279, 2013 WL 1629222, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6039

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 17, 2013 | Docket: 60231832

Cited 1 times | Published

incident under the applicable statute of limitations. § 95.051, Fla. Stat. (2011). Rubio seeks to overcome the

Starling v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

845 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151514, 2011 WL 6965854

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Nov 2, 2011 | Docket: 65979342

Cited 1 times | Published

certain instances, Fla. Stat. § 95.051, but that list is exhaustive, id. § 95.051(2); Hearndon v. Graham, 767

Arvelo v. Park Finance of Broward, Inc.

15 So. 3d 660, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 8526, 2009 WL 1766693

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 24, 2009 | Docket: 1192159

Cited 1 times | Published

collateral and resulting partial payment," under section 95.051(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2002). But the statute

COMMERCEBANK, NA v. Taylor

964 So. 2d 817, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 14574, 2007 WL 2710774

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 19, 2007 | Docket: 2574715

Cited 1 times | Published

jurisdiction did not toll the statute of limitations. See § 95.051(a), Fla. Stat. (2007). Service on Taylor was possible

Cadle Co. v. McCartha

920 So. 2d 144, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1255, 2006 WL 249216

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 3, 2006 | Docket: 1730627

Cited 1 times | Published

forth in section 95.11(2)(b) had been tolled by section 95.051(1)(f), Florida Statutes: (1) The running of

Pedro v. Pedro

910 So. 2d 426, 2005 WL 2292055

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 21, 2005 | Docket: 1494502

Cited 1 times | Published

present case, not only does the plain language of section 95.051 not expressly change the common law doctrine

Pedro v. Pedro

910 So. 2d 426, 2005 WL 2292055

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 21, 2005 | Docket: 1494502

Cited 1 times | Published

present case, not only does the plain language of section 95.051 not expressly change the common law doctrine

Lee v. Simon

885 So. 2d 939, 2004 WL 2389952

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 27, 2004 | Docket: 1287007

Cited 1 times | Published

the failure to discover the negligent actor. Section 95.051(1), Florida Statutes (1998), provides when

Richardson v. Wilson

490 So. 2d 1039, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1437

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 27, 1986 | Docket: 1488798

Cited 1 times | Published

the specific tolling provisions enumerated in section 95.051, Florida Statutes (1985), in the context of

Ortiz v. Winn-Dixie, Inc., Travelers Insurance, and Sedgwick CMS

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 23, 2024 | Docket: 69491845

Published

of “toll” in the general limitations statute—section 95.051, Florida Statutes—and concluding the Legislature

Roxana Quintana v. Rodriguez Family Investment Partnership, LLLP, Etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 11, 2024 | Docket: 69455324

Published

novation of the mortgage.” 2 We also note that section 95.051, which provides that a statute of limitations

Mark Kinchla, Individually and Mark 48, LLC v. Ran Investments, LLC, Kilgore Properties, LLC, Nanlann, Inc., Robert Pola, Newton Corner Condominium

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 6, 2024 | Docket: 69135349

Published

circumstances that toll a statute of limitations. See § 95.051, Fla. Stat. (2007).3 Nanlann agrees that

R.R. v. New Life Community Church of CMA, Inc.

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 1, 2020 | Docket: 18495687

Published

767 So. 2d at 1185 (emphasis added). Section 95.051(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2019), provides:

R.R. v. New Life

248 So. 3d 232

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 14, 2018 | Docket: 6911556

Published

were to adopt Appellants' argument as to section 95.051(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2011), Appellants'

D.H. Ex Rel. R.H. v. Adept Community Services, Inc.

217 So. 3d 1072

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 5, 2017 | Docket: 4669313

Published

the tolling for minors’ claims provided by section 95.051(l)(h) is inapplicable here. That disposition

Langley Ltd. Partnership v. School Board of Lake County

113 So. 3d 995, 2013 WL 1482779

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 12, 2013 | Docket: 60231684

Published

statute of limitations for its 2010 claims. See § 95.051(2), Fla. Stat. (2011) (“A disability or other

AFFCO New Zealand, Ltd. v. American Fine Foods Corp.

913 F. Supp. 2d 1331, 2012 WL 6644997, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180097

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 2012 | Docket: 65987481

Published

See Fla. Stat. § 95.051. The statutory tolling list is exhaustive, see Fla. Stat. § 95.051(2); Major League

M.J.O. Holding Corp. v. Heller

97 So. 3d 864, 2012 WL 3329195, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13547

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 15, 2012 | Docket: 60311988

Published

misrepresentation of himself as Welt on September 19, 2003. Section 95.051(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), provides that

Cohen v. WORLD OMNI FINANCIAL CORP.

751 F. Supp. 2d 1289, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125022, 2010 WL 4721294

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Oct 20, 2010 | Docket: 2337659

Published

See Witchel, 2008 WL 1848359, at *2. Fl. Stat. § 95.051 sets forth eight situations sufficient to toll

Ramirez v. McCravy

37 So. 3d 240, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 279, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 797, 2010 WL 1994654

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 20, 2010 | Docket: 1668739

Published

declaring that by enumerating eight grounds in section 95.051, the legislature has basically precluded application

McCole v. City of Marathon

36 So. 3d 750, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 5254, 2010 WL 1565466

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 2010 | Docket: 2409841

Published

otherwise barred by the statute of limitations. Section 95.051, Florida Statutes, enumerates eight specific

Rodriguez v. Favalora

11 So. 3d 393, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2861, 2009 WL 928467

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 8, 2009 | Docket: 1657060

Published

limitation period. 767 So.2d at 1185; see also § 95.051, Fla. Stat. (2006). Nonetheless, the Court recognized

Ryan v. Lobo de Gonzalez

921 So. 2d 572, 30 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 789, 2005 Fla. LEXIS 2211, 2005 WL 3005556

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 10, 2005 | Docket: 64842500

Published

forebear filing suit. Id. at 1073. We held that section 95.051, Florida Statutes (1993), which delineates

Benfield v. Everest Venture Group, Inc.

801 So. 2d 1021, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17843, 2001 WL 1614155

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 19, 2001 | Docket: 64810823

Published

provision in section 95.051(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1991). The applicable portions of section 95.051(1) state:

Northcutt v. Balkany

727 So. 2d 382, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2448, 1999 WL 110843

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 5, 1999 | Docket: 64786501

Published

limitation tolling provisions, set forth in section 95.051, do not allow for a toll of any statute of

Senger Bros. Nursery, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co.

184 F.R.D. 674, 43 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1295, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1586, 1999 WL 80337

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 5, 1999 | Docket: 66009324

Published

situations set out within Florida Statute § 95.051. See Fla.Stat. § 95.051. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23

Permenter v. Geico General Insurance

712 So. 2d 1178, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 7149, 1998 WL 314682

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 17, 1998 | Docket: 64781591

Published

suggest that any of the tolling provisions in section 95.051, Florida Statutes (1991), pertain to this case

Herder v. First Union National Bank

708 So. 2d 997, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2892, 1998 WL 131360

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 25, 1998 | Docket: 64780028

Published

rule has been effected by the enactment of section 95.051(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1975), see Wassil

Abbott v. Kiser

654 So. 2d 640, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5025, 1995 WL 270666

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 10, 1995 | Docket: 64756107

Published

tolled the running of the statute of limitations. § 95.051(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993). Upon the husband’s return

Brandt v. Bassett

855 F. Supp. 353, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6551

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: May 3, 1994 | Docket: 65990998

Published

state law). Florida’s tolling statute, Fla.Stat. § 95.051 (West Supp.1994), enumerates the specific circumstances

Brown v. MRS Manufacturing Co.

617 So. 2d 758, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4482, 1993 WL 120361

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 1993 | Docket: 64695876

Published

FARMER, Judge. The issue in this case is whether section 95.051(1), Florida Statutes (1991), has the effect

Webb v. Chambly

584 So. 2d 216, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8156, 1991 WL 158578

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 21, 1991 | Docket: 64660875

Published

We also find insurmountable the language in section 95.051, Florida Statutes, which limits tolling of

Palm Beach County v. Gene A. Bernard & Associates, Inc.

566 So. 2d 886, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6816, 1990 WL 129653

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 12, 1990 | Docket: 64652940

Published

temporary injunction because Florida Statute Section 95.051 provides, by its terms, the exclusive instances

Quaintance v. Fogg

392 So. 2d 360, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 18614

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 14, 1981 | Docket: 64579609

Published

findings were as follows: 4. That in accordance with § 95.-051(l)(f), Florida Statutes, payments by defendant

International Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, Local 1765 v. United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry, Local No. 803

341 So. 2d 1005, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15843

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 24, 1976 | Docket: 64556844

Published

of stale claims. Even in the provisions of F.S. § 95.051, enacted after the events involved in this case