## Facts

- A motor-vehicle collision occurred on September 17, 1954, in Perry, Florida, involving a car owned and operated by Ruth Mark Jensen (later Ruth Mark Jensen Cresse) and a car driven by Roy Dibble with Sid W. Jensen’s consent.
- At the time of the accident, Ruth and Sid Jensen were married and Florida residents.
- After the accident, Ruth divorced Sid, moved out of Florida, and became a New Jersey resident.
- On January 4, 1960, Dibble filed a negligence action in Florida against Sid Jensen and Ruth Cresse.
- Ruth answered, admitting her ownership and operation of the vehicle, her former marriage to Sid, her divorce, and her nonresidency.
- Ruth raised an affirmative defense that the action was barred by Florida’s four-year statute of limitations.
- Dibble filed an affidavit asserting he exercised due diligence but did not learn Ruth’s whereabouts until more than four years after the accident and could not serve her in Florida.

## Issues

1. Whether the defendant’s absence from Florida tolled the four-year statute of limitations for the automobile-collision claim.
2. Whether the plaintiff’s asserted inability to locate and serve the defendant within the limitations period prevented the statute from running when statutory service on a nonresident motorist was available.
3. Whether, for limitations purposes, the action is “commenced” by filing the complaint rather than by obtaining service of process.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed judgment on the pleadings for Ruth Cresse.
- The court held the claim was barred by the four-year statute of limitations.
- The court rejected tolling based on Ruth’s absence because she was subject to substituted service as a nonresident motor vehicle owner.
- The court relied on the rule that a civil action is commenced when the complaint is filed; lack of prior service did not excuse a late filing.

## Legal Principles

- In Florida civil practice, an action is commenced when the complaint is filed, not when service is perfected.
- A defendant’s physical absence from Florida does not toll the statute of limitations where the defendant remains amenable to process through a statutory method of service.
- For nonresident motorists, Florida’s statutory service mechanism permits service despite out-of-state residence; a plaintiff’s difficulty locating the defendant does not extend the limitations period when such service is available.
- A complaint filed after expiration of the applicable limitations period is time-barred and may be resolved on the pleadings when the bar appears from the pleadings and judicially applicable rules.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff’s 1960 automobile-collision suit as untimely, holding that the limitations period was not tolled by the defendant’s move out of state because Florida law treated the suit as commenced upon filing and provided a statutory method to serve nonresident motorists.


Dibble v. Jensen, 129 So. 2d 162 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1961)