Oral Loan Agreement Florida

Stephen J. Anderson and his brother Michael were the sole shareholders of Anderson Development Corporation, a Florida company.   Robert T. Mosher obtained a judgment against the group and attempted to fill Anderson`s pre-loan commitment to the group in order to comply with his judgment.   The fourth arrondissement sets out the relevant additional facts: the question is when the statute of limitations for an oral loan begins, which either does not contain repayment terms or is payable on request.   Section 95.11 (3) (k), Florida Statutes (2001), states that “legal or just actions on a contract, obligation or liability not based on a written instrument” are filed within four years.   Accordingly, everyone agrees that, in this case, an action in favour of the oral loan is subject to a statute of limitations of four years.   However, this is the date on which the statute of limitations begins. 2. In this case, the fourth arrondissement characterized the oral loan as “payable on demand” but also stated that the loan did not contain interest or repayment terms.

 Anderson, 758 So.2d to 1177.   While this distinction is not significant for today`s participation, I would refuse to characterize the oral loan as “payable on demand” since the loan is best considered not to be considered a means of payment.   See Fleming v. Burbach Radio, Inc., 377 So.2d 723, 724 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).   However, according to the UCC, a written note payable on request or according to the holder`s wishes and a loan with no repayment terms are considered “payable on request.”   See 673.1081, Fla. Stat. (2001). I do not agree with respect.   I believe that the majority ignores both the legal and the common law when it concludes that there is a means of bringing an action in favour of an oral loan without conditions of repayment and that the statute of limitations begins on the date of the request for payment and not at the time of payment of the loan.   I also come to the conclusion that the political reasons of the majority are wrong.   That is why I would like to give the opinion of the fourth district court in Anderson/.