Case Name: BRANFORD STATE BANK, Appellant, v. HACKNEY TRACTOR COMPANY, INC., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-08-23
Citations: 455 So. 2d 541
Docket Number: No. AV-314
Parties: BRANFORD STATE BANK, Appellant, v. HACKNEY TRACTOR COMPANY, INC., Appellee.
Judges: BOOTH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur,
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 455
Pages: 541–543

Head Matter:
BRANFORD STATE BANK, Appellant, v. HACKNEY TRACTOR COMPANY, INC., Appellee.
No. AV-314.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Aug. 23, 1984.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 18, 1984.
Andrew J. Decker, III, of Airth, Sellers, Lewis & Decker, Live Oak, for appellant.
Charles Vocelle and William J. Haley of Brannon, Brown, Norris, Vocelle, Haley, Brown & Robinson, Lake City, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Summary judgment was entered below, holding the appellant bank's suit was barred based on the court's determination that the statute of limitations had begun to run at the time of the alleged conversion of the property which was the subject of appellant's security interest. Thus, judgment was entered for appellee despite appellee's failure to show that appellant was aware of, or should have been aware of, the invasion of its legal rights. This was error. Lund v. Cook, 354 So.2d 940, 942 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), quoting Creviston v. General Motors Corp., 225 So.2d 331 (Fla.1969):
From the standpoint of legal principles, the holdings in the cases above discussed appear to crystallize in favor of application of the blameless ignorance doctrine in those instances where the injured plaintiff was unaware or had no reason to know that an invasion of his legal rights has occurred. In reality, such a doctrine is merely a recognition of the fundamental principle that regardless of the underlying nature of the cause of action, the accrual of the same must coincide with the aggrieved party's discovery or duty to discover the act constituting an invasion of his legal rights." (emphasis supplied)
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for determination of the statute of limitations' question in accordance herewith and for resolution of any necessary issues of material fact.
BOOTH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur,
ERVIN, C.J., specially concurs with written opinion.