- 27 -
that claims of the United States could be invalidated because they
were not filed within the prescribed period of time. The Court
reasoned:
If this were a statute merely determining the limits
of the jurisdiction of a probate court and thus providing
that the County Judge should have no jurisdiction to
receive or pass upon claims not filed within the eight
months, while leaving an opportunity to the United States
otherwise to enforce its claim, the authority of the
State to impose such a limitation upon its probate court
might be conceded. But if the statute, as sustained by
the state court, undertakes to invalidate the claim of
the United States, so that it cannot be enforced at all,
because not filed within eight months, we think the
statute in that sense transgressed the limits of state
power.
Id.
We do not read Summerlin as requiring a distinction between a
statute of limitations and a limitations period that is an element
of a cause of action, and we hold that no such distinction is
relevant in this case. The Supreme Court in Summerlin did not
recognize the Florida limitations period as a statute of
limitations, and there is no language in that case limiting its
holding to such statutes. See FSLIC v. Landry, 701 F. Supp. 570,
573 (E.D. La. 1988). The persuasive case law supports our holding.
See United States v. Cody, 961 F. Supp. at 221.
Moreover, the public policy for exempting the Federal
Government from the application of State statutes of limitations is
not furthered by carving out exceptions where the State integrates
the limitations period as an element of the cause of action which
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011