If necessary, the parties to the proceedings in Florida should duly recognize the limitation periods that are exceptions to the circumstances expressed by The Legislature in F.S. 95.051. These exceptions include a fair toll, as expressed in Machules by the Florida Supreme Court, and filing a petition in the Federal Bankruptcy Court.59 Tolling is a legal doctrine that allows the duration of the statute of limitations to be maintained or delayed, so that an action may eventually be filed after the statute of limitations has expired. Although the reasons for the statute of limitations vary according to jurisdiction, there are common reasons:  An exception to F.S. 95.051 (2): The Equitable Tolling Doctrine Although the Florida Supreme Court would make several other contrary decisions,41 the court created an exception for toll reasons just in Machules/2e dep`t of Admin. 523 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1988).42 In Machules, the Florida Supreme Court applied a fair toll in a case involving the statute of limitations for filing an administrative complaint concerning the dismissal of a public employee. In that case, the court found that the toll billing doctrine the limitation period,43 the Kelley v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. , 2013 LEXIS 154239 , 2013 LEXIS 154239 , no. 13-61864 (S.D. Fla. 28 years. 39 The provision of the toll under 95.051 (1)) (f) has also been interpreted as not including partial payments for a judgment, whereas a judgment is unquestionably a written instrument.40 Maryland does not preserve the toll. and to cite the statute of limitations only if Parliament has created an exception to its application.  The Maryland courts have ruled that the statute of limitations is stagnating, a statutory judgment over a reasonable period of time during which a person is brought with due diligence.”  An appropriate toll applies to criminal and civil proceedings, including removal proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).  A fair toll is a common principle of the law which states that a statute of limitations does not exclude a right if, despite due diligence, the applicant was not able or unable to determine the harm until after the statute of limitations had expired.