Ｐａｇｅ 98041 ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 通常モードに戻る ┃ ＩＮＤＥＸ ┃ ≪前へ │ 次へ≫ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ▼located Enterirhiff 12/8/15(水) 6:34 ─────────────────────────────────────── ■題名 ： located ■名前 ： Enterirhiff <SotincerceSex@gmail.com> ■日付 ： 12/8/15(水) 6:34 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Opinion Incidentally, in our opinion in the just-quoted case we cited and relied upon the rule of reasonableness recognized in the Beckmen and the Cason cases, supra. A defendant may be estopped to plead the statute of limitations where a plaintiff was induced by fraud, misrepresentations, or deception to refrain from filing a timely action. To make out equitable estoppel, the plaintiff must have relied upon defendants' statements in refraining from filing suit. New York courts have endorsed the preferable analysis that due diligence on the part of the plaintiff in bringing his action is an essential element for the applicability of the doctrine of equitable estoppel, to be demonstrated by the plaintiff when he seeks the shelter of the doctrine. When plaintiffs possess "timely knowledge" sufficient to place them under a duty to make inquiry and ascertain for themselves all the relevant facts, courts should not view with favor a claim of estoppel grounded in fraud. Thereafter, BHP brought this action against Rekant alleging breach of fiduciary duty and fraud, arguing that Rekant had been acting essentially on behalf of himself and his relatives or friends. Rekant maintained that he had not been acting as BHP's counsel during the matter at issue, 832 So. 2d 833 but rather that he had been acting on the payees' behalf. Rekant filed a motion for more definite statement and a determination of the applicability of section 95.11(4)(a). After a hearing on the matter, the court initially entered an order concluding that the actions alleged were not limited to the nature of malpractice and therefore the two year statute on malpractice was not applicable. Rekant filed an answer to the amended complaint still denying he acted as the attorney for BHP, and again asserting that he represented the payees of the note. CASE SUMMARY http://articles.wwwdironline.net/index.php?page=article&article_id=39747 NO. 67,586 Adams v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad Co., 224 So.2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969), analyses the various Florida decisions applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens and clearly sets forth the applicable rule of law: SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA 14 However, times have changed. As explained in the majority opinion in this case, both the United States Congress and the Florida Legislature have enacted legislation that expands the means available for collecting child support and alimony. Such legislation includes section 61.17(3), Florida Statutes (1989), which provides in part: "The entry of a judgment for arrearages for child support, alimony, or attorney's fees and costs does not preclude a subsequent contempt proceeding . . . for failure of an obligor to pay the child support, alimony, attorney's fees, or costs for which the judgment was entered." (Emphasis added.) Consequently, the election of remedies doctrine no longer applies where support arrearages are concerned, and a party may seek payment of such arrearages through judgment enforcement proceedings and through contempt proceedings. http://www.smilesaroundus.com/2012/08/08/practical-secrets-in-job-salary-the-options/ |