Opinion ID: 1856048
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: limitations effect

Text: As a final point, we recognize that MRTA also functions much as a statute of limitations in that it requires stale demands to be asserted within a reasonable time after a cause of action has accrued. It prescribes a period within which a right may be enforced. St. Joe Paper Co., 364 So.2d at 442. Although MRTA can produce harsh results, in upholding its constitutionality, this Court has declared: We are committed to the rule that statutes of this nature [statute of limitations] are good where a reasonable time is allowed to prosecute an asserted right. Id. at 443 (quoting Buck v. Triplett, 159 Fla. 772, 774, 32 So.2d 753, 754 (1947)). The law is well settled by decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, and in other jurisdictions, that statutes of limitation affecting existing rights are not unconstitutional if a reasonable time is given for the enforcement of the right before the bar takes effect. Campbell v. Horne, 147 Fla. 523, 526, 3 So.2d 125, 126 (1941). As noted above, MRTA's provisions provide reasonable time periods for claims to be asserted. Even for those who choose to wait, the Legislature has been gracious in allowing a thirty-year period in which to record a claim.