Issue: Under Florida law, who bears the burden of proving that an action is not barred by the appropriate statute of limitations?
| Area of Law: | Litigation & Procedure |
| Keywords: | Statute of limitations; Burden of proving |
| Jurisdiction: | Florida |
| Cited Cases: | 370 So. 2d 368; 987 So. 2d 168; 356 So. 2d 1296; 57 Fla. 30 |
| Cited Statutes: | None |
| Date: | 06/01/2015 |
A “party seeking to escape the statute of limitations must bear the burden of proving circumstances that would toll the statute.” Landers v. Milton, 370 So. 2d 368, 370 (Fla. 1979) (citing Armstrong v. Wilcox, 57 Fla. 30, 49 So. 41 (1909)). The plaintiff, not Defendant, is required to demonstrate that it complied with the statute of limitations. See also City of Riviera Beach v. Reed, 987 So. 2d 168 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2008) (quoting Roehner v. Atl. Coast Dev. Corp., 356 So. 2d 1296, 1297 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2008)) (holding dismissal is appropriate when it is “inescapably clear from the face of the complaint the suit was filed beyond the statutory period”).
[…]