Case ID: so2d_438/html/0085-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Martin BERNARD, Appellant, v. Charles SCHNIER, Appellee.
    Nos. 82-1265, 82-1886.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Sept. 7, 1983.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 17, 1983.
    Bradford J. Beilly of Abrams, Anton, Robbins, Resnick, Schneider & Mager, P.A., Hollywood, for appellant.
    Mark Baer, Miami, and Thomas G. Sherman, Coral Gables, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

This suit involves a suit on a note. The determinative question is whether the note was under seal. The trial court determined that it was not under seal and that the suit was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. There is little authority on the subject, but we conclude that the trial court was incorrect. The note was a sealed instrument. The summary judgment is reversed. See Megdell v. Bailey, 194 So.2d 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), and McCarley v. Board of Supervisors of Tippah County, 58 Miss. 483 (Miss.1880).

The circuit court’s assessment of attorney’s fees against appellant under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1979), is also reversed. The matter is remanded for trial.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and BERANEK and HURLEY, JJ., concur.