Major League Baseball v. Morsani

Decision Date12 July 2001
Docket NumberNo. SC96004.,SC96004.
Citation790 So.2d 1071
PartiesMAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, et al., Petitioners, v. Frank L. MORSANI, etc., et al., Respondents.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

John W. Foster, Sr. of Baker & Hostetler LLP, for Petitioners.

Cunningham Clark & Greiwe, P.A., Tampa, FL; and Joel D. Eaton of Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow, Olin & Perwin, P.A., Miami, FL, for Respondents.

SHAW, J.

We have for review Morsani v. Major League Baseball, 739 So.2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), wherein the district court certified the following question:

Does section 95.051, Florida Statutes (1993), prohibit the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel to an action filed outside of the applicable statute of limitations?

Morsani, 739 So.2d at 616. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answer in the negative as explained herein and approve Morsani on this issue.

I. FACTS

The relevant facts are set forth in the district court opinion under review, which provides in part:

The present appeal involves Count I of the plaintiffs complaint, which alleges tortious interference in the acquisition of the Minnesota Twins. The plaintiffs allege that, in 1984, the owners of a majority of the stock of Minnesota Twins, Inc. agreed to sell their controlling interest to the plaintiffs on condition that the plaintiffs first purchase the minority interest from a different party. The plaintiffs subsequently purchased the minority interest for $11,500,000. Thereafter, the majority owners sold their interest to another buyer, and the defendants demanded that the plaintiffs assign the minority interest to the new majority owner for $225,000. At that time, the minority interest in the Minnesota Twins was worth $25,000,000.
The plaintiffs further allege that they agreed to the assignment because the defendants promised that the plaintiffs would be an "absolute front runner" and "at the top of the list" to obtain a majority ownership interest in a baseball franchise in time to begin the 1993 baseball season. The defendants also told the plaintiffs that if they failed to assign the minority interest, the plaintiffs would never own an interest in a major league baseball team. It is undisputed that the plaintiffs never obtained an ownership interest in any major league baseball team, even though Major League Baseball granted other new baseball franchises.
After two more failed attempts to purchase baseball franchises, the plaintiffs filed a complaint, alleging interference with advantageous contractual and business relationships and violation of antitrust laws. The defendants moved for summary judgment claiming that the statute of limitation had run as to Count I. At the hearing on the motion, the plaintiffs conceded that the statute of limitations had run, but argued that the defendants were equitably estopped from raising the statute of limitations because the defendants had induced the plaintiffs to forbear suit on the Minnesota Twins transaction.
The trial court granted summary judgment as to Count I as a matter of law. The trial court found that section 95.051, Florida Statutes (1993), which enumerates the eight specific circumstances that toll the statute of limitations, constitutes a legislatively mandated exclusive catalogue of grounds that can avoid the application of the statute of limitations, as the statute was authoritatively construed by the supreme court in Fulton County Administrator v. Sullivan, 22 Fla. L. Weekly S578 (Fla. Sept. 25, 1997). Because equitable estoppel was not included among the permissible grounds for avoiding the effect of the statute of limitations set out in section 95.051, the trial court held that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations.

Morsani v. Major League Baseball, 739 So.2d 610, 612-13 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1999) (footnote omitted).1

The district court reversed, holding that the doctrine of equitable estoppel can operate to bar a statute of limitations defense. Because of the doubt raised by this Court's decision in Fulton County Administrator v. Sullivan, 22 Fla. L. Weekly S578 (Fla. Sept. 25, 1997),2 and the district court's decision in Hearndon v. Graham, 710 So.2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998),3 the court certified the above question.

II. THE APPLICABLE LAW

The standard of review governing a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment posing a pure question of law is de novo.4 As a rule, statutes of limitation impose a strict time limit for filing legal actions.5 The effect of the statutes of limitation, however, can be deflected by several legal theories, including the doctrine of equitable estoppel, as explained below.

A. Statutes of Limitation

At common law, there were no fixed time limits for filing lawsuits.6 Rather, fixed limitations on actions are predicated on public policy and are a product of modern legislative, rather than judicial, processes.7 A prime purpose underlying statutes of limitation is to protect defendants from unfair surprise and stale claims:

"As a statute of [limitations], they afford parties needed protection against the necessity of defending claims which, because of their antiquity, would place the defendant at a grave disadvantage. In such cases how resolutely unfair it would be to award one who has willfully or carelessly slept on his legal rights an opportunity to enforce an unfresh claim against a party who is left to shield himself from liability with nothing more than tattered or faded memories, misplaced or discarded records, and missing or deceased witnesses. Indeed, in such circumstances, the quest for truth might elude even the wisest court."

Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So.2d 25, 36 (Fla.1976) (quoting Wilkinson v. Harrington, 104 R.I. 224, 243 A.2d 745, 752 (1968)).

Time limitations on legal actions in Florida are governed by the provisions of chapter 95, Florida Statutes (1991). Section 95.11 sets forth the limitations period for an action based on an intentional tort:

95.11 Limitations other than for the recovery of real property.—Actions other than for recovery of real property shall be commenced as follows:
. . . .
(3) WITHIN FOUR YEARS.—
. . . .
(o) An action for assault, battery, false arrest, malicious prosecution, malicious interference, false imprisonment, or any other intentional tort....

§ 95.11, Fla. Stat. (1991).

Section 95.051 delineates an exclusive list of conditions that can "toll" the running of the statute of limitations:

95.051 When limitations tolled.—
(1) The running of the time under any statute of limitations ... 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 him.
(c) Concealment in the state of the person to be sued so that process cannot be served on him.
(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 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.
. . . .
(2) No disability or other reason shall toll the running of any statute of limitations except those specified in this section....

§ 95.051, Fla. Stat. (1991) (emphasis added). The Court recently explained that use of the term "toll" in section 95.051 is synonymous with "suspend":

The "tolling" language in section 90.051 has been routinely and consistently interpreted as suspending the running the statute of limitations time clock until the identified condition is settled.

Hankey v. Yarian, 755 So.2d 93, 96 (Fla. 2000) (emphasis added).

B. Equitable Estoppel

The doctrine of equitable estoppel has been a fundamental tenet of Anglo American jurisprudence for centuries:

"Estoppe," says Lord Coke, "cometh of the French word estoupe, from whence the English word stopped; and it is called an estoppel or conclusion, because a man's own act or acceptance stoppeth or closeth up his mouth to allege or plead [otherwise]."

Lancelot Feilding Everest, Everest and Strode's Law of Estoppel 1 (3d ed.1923). The doctrine, which was part of the English common law when the State of Florida was founded, was adopted and codified by the Florida Legislature in 1829.8

Equitable estoppel is based on principles of fair play and essential justice and arises when one party lulls another party into a disadvantageous legal position:

"Equitable estoppel is the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is absolutely precluded, both at law and in equity, from asserting rights which perhaps have otherwise existed, either of property or of contract, or of remedy, as against another person, who has in good faith relied upon such conduct and has been led thereby to change his position for the worse, and who on his part acquires some corresponding right, either of property, or of contract or of remedy."
The doctrine of estoppel is applicable in all cases where one, by word, act or conduct, willfully caused another to believe in the existence of a certain state of things, and thereby induces him to act on this belief injuriously
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
322 cases
  • Clay Elec. Co-Op., Inc. v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • December 18, 2003
    ...reasons, I dissent. WELLS, J., concurs. 1.See Escobar v. Bill Currie Ford, Inc., 247 So.2d 311 (Fla.1971). 2. See Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So.2d 1071 (Fla.2001). 3. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (1965). 4. See, e.g., Dept. of Transp. v. Neilson, 419 So.2d 1071 (Fla.19......
  • IN RE CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERN., INC. ALIEN TORT
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • February 4, 2010
    ... ... is one of the largest banana producers in the world and is a major supplier of bananas throughout North America and Europe. Compl. ¶ 46. It ... 10 ...         In Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So.2d 1071 (Fla.2001), the Florida Supreme Court ... ...
  • Pearl v. City of Long Beach
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • July 15, 2002
    ...least one state uses "tolling" to concern both accrual and stopping of the statute of limitations, see Major League Baseball v. Morsani, ___ Fla. ___, ___, 790 So.2d 1071, 1079 (2001) ("Tolling, strictly speaking, is concerned with the point at which the limitations period begins to runs an......
  • Mid–continent Cas. Co. v. Basdeo
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • September 27, 2010
    ...... [and] bars the wrongdoer from asserting that shortcoming and profiting from his or her own misconduct.” Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So.2d 1071, 1077 (Fla.2001). As the Florida Supreme Court has explained, equitable estoppel “functions as a shield, not a sword ....” Id. In the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 3-2 Statute of Limitations
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Florida Foreclosure Law 2020 Title Chapter 3 Statutes of Limitation and Repose
    • Invalid date
    ...(1980). The statute of limitations seeks to protect defendants from unfair surprise and stale claims. Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So. 2d 1071, 1074-75 (Fla. 2001). Based on their different purposes, the two defenses have different elements, and different exceptions apply to each. ......
  • Legal theories & defenses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Causes of Action
    • April 1, 2022
    ...v. Chiropractic Clinics of S. Fla. , No. 3D21-111, 2021 WL 2447804, at *3 (Fla. 3d DCA June 16, 2021); Major League Baseball v. Morsani , 790 So.2d 1071, 1076 (Fla. 2001). LEGAL THEORIES & DEFENSES §18:10 Florida Causes of Action 18-8 11. Equitable Tolling may delay the running of the statu......
  • Chapter 3-2 Statute of Limitations
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Florida Foreclosure Law 2022 Chapter 3 Statutes of Limitation and Repose
    • Invalid date
    ...(1980). The statute of limitations seeks to protect defendants from unfair surprise and stale claims. Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So. 2d 1071, 1074-75 (Fla. 2001). Based on their different purposes, the two defenses have different elements, and different exceptions apply to each. ......
  • Business litigation
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Small-Firm Practice Tools - Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • April 1, 2023
    ...of the Florida Legislature to protect defendants from ‘from unfair surprise and stale claims.’” [ Major League Baseball v. Morsani , 790 So. 2d 1071, 1074-75 (Fla. 2001).] Before filing a lawsuit, the initial step is to determine the applicable statute of limitations for each potential clai......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT