Court Opinion

ID: 9371105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 16:04:21.224249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:25.434271
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                       Opinion filed February 15, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                               No. 3D22-85
                        Lower Tribunal No. 20-3725
                           ________________

                    Miami Beach Cruisers, LLC,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                  Rolly Marine Service Company,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alan Fine,
Judge.

      Alexander Appellate Law, P.A., and Samuel Alexander (DeLand), for
appellant.

     John D. Kallen, P.A., and John D. Kallen, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LINDSEY, and BOKOR, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See § 95.11(3)(k), Fla. Stat. (2020) (“Actions other than for

recovery of real property shall be commenced as follows: WITHIN FOUR

YEARS. – A legal or equitable action on a contract, obligation, or liability not

founded on a written instrument, including an action for the sale and delivery

of goods, wares, and merchandise, and on store accounts.”); Johnson v.

Harrison Hardware Furniture Co., 160 So. 878, 879 (Fla. 1935) (“[W]here the

evidence of liability relied on is partly set forth in writings in the form of letters

and the like, but the writings are incomplete in themselves, or are otherwise

so indefinite as to necessitate and make unavoidable plaintiff's resort to oral

testimony to make complete the showing of any legal liability incurred by the

defendant, under the terms of the transaction of which the writings are made

a part, such agreement, partly written and partly oral, must be regarded as

an oral contract . . . .”); ARDC Corp. v. Hogan, 656 So. 2d 1371, 1374 (Fla.

4th DCA 1995) (“The fact that [plaintiff] must rely on oral representations to

create the agreement on which her claim is based, means, for the purposes

of the statute of limitations, that the alleged contract is oral, not written.”).

                                          2