Post by Admin on Oct 19, 2013 9:15:35 GMT -5
Here is the Wiki definition:
Laches "remissness", "slackness" is an "unreasonable delay pursuing a right or claim...in a way that prejudices the [opposing] party" [1] When asserted in litigation, it is an equitable defense, or doctrine. The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has "slept on its rights," and that, as a result of this delay, circumstances have changed such that it is no longer just to Grnt the plaintiff's original claim. Put another way, failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner can result in a claim being barred by laches. Laches is a form of estoppel for delay.
The opinion posted on CHUG:
"... any claim(s) regarding the 1986 activities shoud be "estopped for reason of laches". "
Attorney Opinion based on full text reading of the post:
The "waiting 27 years" and "laches" comments do have facial appeal. But, the underlying reality is that case law holds that the passage of time does not breathe validity into an otherwise void instrument. There is even specific case law from both inside and outside of Florida that definitively states that a void "amendment" is not somehow validated by the mere passage of time. Similarly, such case law specifically holds that an action seeking a court declaration that such an "amendment" is void is not barred by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches. See, Word of Life Ministry v. Miller, 778 So.2d 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) and Raimey v. Ditsworth, 227 Ariz. 552, 261 P.3d 436 (2011).
Laches "remissness", "slackness" is an "unreasonable delay pursuing a right or claim...in a way that prejudices the [opposing] party" [1] When asserted in litigation, it is an equitable defense, or doctrine. The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has "slept on its rights," and that, as a result of this delay, circumstances have changed such that it is no longer just to Grnt the plaintiff's original claim. Put another way, failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner can result in a claim being barred by laches. Laches is a form of estoppel for delay.
The opinion posted on CHUG:
"... any claim(s) regarding the 1986 activities shoud be "estopped for reason of laches". "
Attorney Opinion based on full text reading of the post:
The "waiting 27 years" and "laches" comments do have facial appeal. But, the underlying reality is that case law holds that the passage of time does not breathe validity into an otherwise void instrument. There is even specific case law from both inside and outside of Florida that definitively states that a void "amendment" is not somehow validated by the mere passage of time. Similarly, such case law specifically holds that an action seeking a court declaration that such an "amendment" is void is not barred by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches. See, Word of Life Ministry v. Miller, 778 So.2d 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) and Raimey v. Ditsworth, 227 Ariz. 552, 261 P.3d 436 (2011).