Hofer v. Ross, 85-1262
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | SCHEB |
| Citation | 481 So.2d 939,11 Fla. L. Weekly 39 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 39 Edward J. HOFER, Jr., and Diana Hofer, his wife, Appellants, v. Howard P. ROSS, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1262,85-1262 |
| Decision Date | 20 December 1985 |
Page 939
v.
Howard P. ROSS, Appellee.
Second District.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 24, 1986.
William T. Keen, Tampa, for appellants.
Leo H. Meirose, Jr., of Battaglia, Ross, Hastings, Dicus & Andrews, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
Edward and Diana Hofer appeal the trial court's order dismissing with prejudice their second amended complaint against Howard P. Ross. We reverse.
The Hofers filed their original complaint on June 22, 1984, alleging professional negligence against Ross, an attorney. The trial court dismissed their initial and first amended complaints with leave to amend.
In their second amended complaint, the Hofers made the following allegations. They had retained Ross to represent their interest in connection with the sale of their stock in a closed corporation. By using their home as collateral, the Hofers had secured a Small Business Administration (SBA) loan to finance their original purchase of this corporation. Therefore, they requested Ross to have the buyer replace them as guarantor on the loan. Ross prepared a letter dated May 20, 1980, directed to Mr. Hofer. The buyer signed this letter which Ross indicated would accomplish the result that the Hofers desired. The letter did not impose a deadline or specific date on which the buyer was to replace the Hofers as guarantor. Notwithstanding, the Hofers closed the transaction on Ross' advice and his repeated assurance that the letter protected their interests. When the buyer was unable to replace them as guarantor, the Hofers entered a compromise with the SBA on June 25, 1982, to secure their release from the loan. Under terms of the compromise, the Hofers paid the SBA $10,000 for their release from the obligation. They contended that Ross' negligence caused them to sustain this loss. They demanded judgment against Ross for $10,000 plus interest, costs, and attorney's fees.
Ross moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on several grounds, including that the Hofers failed to state a cause of action and that they were barred from recovery because the statute of limitations had run. On February 20, 1985, the trial court, after hearing arguments of counsel and reviewing the case file, dismissed the Hofers' second amended complaint with prejudice.
Page 940
The Hofers moved for a rehearing....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tanner v. Hartog, No. 91-00057
...of limitations had run prior to filing of suit, it is error to grant a motion to dismiss with prejudice on that basis. Hofer v. Ross, 481 So.2d 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Kulpinski v. City of Tarpon Springs, 473 So.2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); B.B.S. v. R.C.B., 252 So.2d 837 (Fla. 2d DCA I would......
-
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Gonzales, Case No. 2D17–3262
...a prior pleading may be asserted as a ground for a motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(b)." Hofer v. Ross, 481 So.2d 939, 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (citing Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) ); accord Williams v. City of Jacksonville, 191 So.3d 925, 927–28 (Fla. 1st DCA 20......
-
Guerrero v. Fonte, No. 85-1636
...bar might present a valid affirmative defense if asserted by the appellants upon the re-filing of this action, cf. Hofer v. Ross, 481 So.2d 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (statute of limitations is an affirmative defense which must be pled by the defendant to be a valid defense), it has no impact u......
-
Hanano v. Petrou, No. 94-4067
...statute affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint, the statute of limitations may be raised by motion to dismiss. Hofer v. Ross, 481 So.2d 939, 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Toledo Park Homes v. Grant, 447 So.2d 343, 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Williams v. Covell, 236 So.2d 447, 448 (Fla. 1s......
-
Tanner v. Hartog, No. 91-00057
...of limitations had run prior to filing of suit, it is error to grant a motion to dismiss with prejudice on that basis. Hofer v. Ross, 481 So.2d 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Kulpinski v. City of Tarpon Springs, 473 So.2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); B.B.S. v. R.C.B., 252 So.2d 837 (Fla. 2d DCA I would......
-
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Gonzales, Case No. 2D17–3262
...a prior pleading may be asserted as a ground for a motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(b)." Hofer v. Ross, 481 So.2d 939, 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (citing Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) ); accord Williams v. City of Jacksonville, 191 So.3d 925, 927–28 (Fla. 1st DCA 20......
-
Guerrero v. Fonte, No. 85-1636
...bar might present a valid affirmative defense if asserted by the appellants upon the re-filing of this action, cf. Hofer v. Ross, 481 So.2d 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (statute of limitations is an affirmative defense which must be pled by the defendant to be a valid defense), it has no impact u......
-
Hanano v. Petrou, No. 94-4067
...statute affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint, the statute of limitations may be raised by motion to dismiss. Hofer v. Ross, 481 So.2d 939, 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Toledo Park Homes v. Grant, 447 So.2d 343, 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Williams v. Covell, 236 So.2d 447, 448 (Fla. 1s......