Case Name: Bonnie CALDER, Appellant, v. Steven F. UWANAWICH and Mary Uwanawich, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-04-24
Citations: 449 So. 2d 911
Docket Number: No. 83-1151
Parties: Bonnie CALDER, Appellant, v. Steven F. UWANAWICH and Mary Uwanawich, Appellees.
Judges: Before DANIEL S. PEARSON, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 449
Pages: 911–915

Head Matter:
Bonnie CALDER, Appellant, v. Steven F. UWANAWICH and Mary Uwanawich, Appellees.
No. 83-1151.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
April 24, 1984.
Rehearing Denied May 31, 1984.
Paul R. Lipton, North Miami Beach, for appellant.
Burton & Fisher and Ann Mason Parker, Miami, for appellees.
Before DANIEL S. PEARSON, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Having examined the record before us we conclude that the trial court did not err in granting a summary judgment premised upon a determination that the appellant's action was barred by the applicable statute of limitation, § 95.11(3)(j), Fla.Stat. (1979). See Steiner v. Ciba Geigy Corp., 364 So.2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied mem., 373 So.2d 461 (Fla.1979); Codding v. Phillips, 296 So.2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied mem., 304 So.2d 125 (Fla.1974); Matthews v. Matthews, 222 So.2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); § 95.031, Fla.Stat. (1979).
Affirmed.
. In response to the dissent we note only that Calder's naivete, colossal or otherwise, is not the issue upon which this case turns. We merely decline to add gypsy fortuneteller to the list of professionals who the reasonably prudent person might believe owe a fiduciary duty to a client. The cases cited by the dissent are therefore inapposite.