City of Orlando v. Williams, 85-1115
| Decision Date | 24 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1115,85-1115 |
| Citation | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1628,493 So.2d 15 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1628 CITY OF ORLANDO and Greater Orlando Aviation Authority, Appellants, v. C. Champ WILLIAMS and Robert E. Langford, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert Dyer, of Duckworth, Allen, Dyer & Pettis, P.A., Orlando, for appellants.
William G. Osborne and Wendy L. Aikin, of Osborne and Aikin, Orlando, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered in a contractual dispute over a lease agreement to operate an airport hotel facility. Appellants, the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority and the City of Orlando (the City), contend that the trial court erred in determining when the cause of action accrued, in granting appellees, Champ Williams and Robert Langford (the Williams group), the right of first refusal to construct a hotel at the new terminal, and in granting specific performance under the lease.
In 1964, the Williams group appeared before the Orlando City Commission to propose that a hotel be constructed at McCoy Air Force Base. The Air Force had recently entered into a lease with the city to allow the city to use the runway. The city invited bids on a hotel facility and accepted the Williams group's bid. The hotel lease agreement was executed on July 26, 1965. After the Air Force relinquished control over the airport in 1975, the city commenced construction of a new terminal which was completed in 1981. A hotel facility was never constructed between 1965 and January 20, 1984, when the Williams group filed suit for specific performance.
The controlling question presented is whether this action was barred by the statute of limitations. Section 95.11(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1985) requires that an action for specific performance of a contract shall be commenced within one year. Consistent with Florida law, this means that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the contract is breached. Central National Bank v. Central Bancorp, Inc., 411 So.2d 358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Stated differently, the statute of limitations starts running when there has been notice of an invasion of plaintiff's legal rights or notice of plaintiff's right to a cause of action. Toledo Park Homes v. Grant, 447 So.2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Smith v. Continental Insurance Co., 326 So.2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).
The City contends that the cause of action arose in 1967 when the Williams group's attorney, in a letter to the City, wrote that he had "advised" his clients that they have a "right" to insist upon specific performance. The City also points out that the Williams group did not attempt to enforce the lease after they were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Development Corp., In re
...is barred by the applicable one year statute of limitations under Florida law. See Fla.Stat. § 95.11(5)(a); City of Orlando v. Williams, 493 So.2d 15 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Discussion on Bankruptcy Court's Order Granting Atlantic Gulf's Motion to Enforce Executory Contract, Discharge and Inju......
-
In re General Development Corp.
...is barred by the applicable one year statute of limitations under Florida law. See Fla.Stat. § 95.11(5)(a); City of Orlando v. Williams, 493 So.2d 15 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Discussion on Bankruptcy Court's Order Granting Atlantic Gulf's Motion to Enforce Executory Contract, Discharge and Inju......
-
Swartzman v. Harlan
...contention, Scrub-A-Dub relies on the "general rule" as cited in Schwartz v. Zaconick, 74 So.2d 108 (Fla.1954); City of Orlando v. Williams, 493 So.2d 15 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), rev. denied, 503 So.2d 328 (Fla.1987); Major Appliances, Inc. v. Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Co., 462 So.2d 561, 563......
-
McMillan v. Shively, 1D08-5402.
...breached. Cent. Nat'l Bank of Miami v. Centr. Bancorp, Inc., 411 So.2d 358, 362 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982); see also City of Orlando v. Williams, 493 So.2d 15, 16 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Appellants concede a breach occurred in 2003. However, appellants argued below that a subsequent implied in fact c......