JOSEPH M. HENRION AND LOIS L. HENRION, HIS WIFE, AND A.W. NORDMAN AND J.M. HENRION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROGER H. SHOOK, MARK J. GREENWAY, JIM GRAHAM, NEW ERA REALTY IV, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION AND JIM GRAHAM, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An amendment that does not substantially change the cause of action may relate back to the original filing date, even after the statute of limitations has run.
The trial court dismissed an amended complaint, finding the cause of action barred by the statute of limitations. The appellee argued the amendment im…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Relation Back Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
In this case, the trial court dismissed an amended complaint holding that the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations. We reverse.
The appellee’s position is that the third amended complaint was more than a mere substitution of parties and that new issues of both liability and damages were raised. We disagree.
The general rule is that whether an amendment, which makes changes in parties to the suit, relates back to the bringing of the suit for determining the application of the statute of limitations depends on the nature of the matter asserted by the amendment. An amendment which does not substantially change a cause of action may be made even after the statute of limitations has run. See Lindy's of Orlando, Inc. v. United Electric Company, 239 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); and Galuppi v. Viele, 232 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), cert. denied 238 So. 2d 109 (Fla.1970).
Without protracted discussion, it is our view that the amendment before us now essentially pled the same cause of action. Therefore, the amendment should have been allowed and the statute of limitations did not bar the amendment.
REVERSED AND REMANDED IN ACCORDANCE HEREWITH.
HERSEY, C.J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roger Dean Chevrolet, Inc. v. Lashley, 580 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…application of the rule that an amendment adding a party plaintiff in a case which does not substantially change a cause of action may be made even after the statute of limitations has run. Apropos of that rule, this court held in Henrion v. Shook, 490 So. 2d 1283, 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986): The general rule is that whether the amendment, which makes changes in parties to the suit, relates back to the bringing of the suit for determining the application of the statute of limitations depends on the nature of t…
-
P.V. Constr. Corp. v. Kovner, 538 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…un when the delay in amending the counterclaim was occasioned by the trial court’s error in refusing to allow the amendment in the first place — which error resulted in an appeal that took some time to perfect, hear and decide. See Henrion v. Shook, 490 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Smith v. Metropolitan Dade County, 338 So. 2d 878-79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Gatins v. Sebastian Inlet Tax District, 453 So. 2d 871, 874 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). See also Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.190(c). GLICKSTEIN, WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur…
Authorities Cited
- Mrs. Betty Galuppi v. Viele, 232 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Lindy's OF Orlando, Inc. v. United Elec. Co., 239 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- State v. Sturgis, 238 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1970)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Charles Taylor Marine, Inc., 238 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1970)