ROY THOMAS, APPELLANT,
v.
TAYLOR CREEK MARINA OF FORT PIERCE, INC., ET AL., 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.
Roy Thomas appealed a dismissal of his negligence complaint based on statute of limitations expiration. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Thomas's amended complaint correcting the defendant corporation's name related back to the original complaint filing date, thereby preserving his claim.
An amendment correcting a mere misnomer may relate back to the original complaint's filing date. Here, naming the wrong corporate entity was only a misnomer, not the introduction of a new party, so the amended complaint related back to the original complaint and was timely filed under the statute of limitations.
[1] An amendment correcting a misnomer in the name of a defendant relates back to the date of the original complaint for statute of limitations purposes.
[2] The relation back doctrine is inapplicable when an amendment seeks to bring new parties into a lawsuit.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“An amendment which merely corrects a misnomer might well relate back to the date the complaint was originally filed but this relation back rule is inapplicable where the effect is to bring new parties into the suit.”
Establishes the governing legal rule distinguishing between permissible amendments correcting misnomers and impermissible amendments introducing new parties.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas was injured in a slip-and-fall accident on August 6, 1982, at a marina. The marina was sold shortly after the injury. Thomas filed suit before …
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 Misnomer cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Chief Judge.
This appeal seeks review of a final order dismissing a complaint with prejudice based upon the applicable statute of limitations.
Appellant, Thomas, alleges that he was injured on August 6,1982, when he slipped and fell at a marina then owned and operated by “Taylor Creek Marina of Ft. Pierce, Inc.” Shortly after that date the marina was sold to “Taylor Creek Marina, Inc., a Florida corporation.”
Just prior to expiration of the time for filing suit established by the applicable statute of limitations, Thomas instituted the present litigation, naming as defendant “Taylor Creek Marina, a Florida Corporation.” Process was served on the new owner of the marina, which promptly filed a motion to dismiss.
Recognizing that he had used an incorrect name, Thomas filed an amended complaint correcting the name of the corporation. This amendment was filed fourteen days after the running of the statute of limitations.
The issue is whether filing of the amended complaint relates back to the date of filing of the original complaint for purposes of the statute of limitations.
The general rule regarding amendments relating back to original complaints is that:
An amendment which merely corrects a misnomer might well relate back to the date the complaint was originally filed but this relation back rule is inapplicable where the effect is to bring new parties into the suit.
Louis v. South Broward Hospital District, 353 So. 2d 562, 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), rev. dismissed, 359 So. 2d 1217 (Fla.1978). See also Francese v. Tamarac Hospital Corporation, 504 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
The cases relied on by appellant, including Galuppi v. Viele, 232 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 238 So. 2d 109 (Fla.1970), and Hohl v. Croom Motorcross, Inc., 358 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), turned on activities by the respective defendants that involved reliance and one aspect of estoppel. While an argument could reasonably be made that a somewhat similar factual scenario is represented by the facts in the instant case, we prefer not to rest our conclusion on an estoppel theory. Indeed, we seriously question whether knowledge of impending litigation should impact upon the relation back doctrine. See, e.g., Lindsey v. H.H. Raulerson Junior Memorial Hospital, 505 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 513 So. 2d 1062 (Fla.1987). The original complaint here named a nonexistent entity: “Taylor Creek Marina, a Florida Corporation.” The correct name was “Taylor Creek Marina of Ft. Pierce, Inc.” We conclude that this was a mere misnomer and that the filing of the amended complaint relates back to the time of filing of the original complaint for purposes of application of the statute of limitations.
The fact that process was served on the wrong corporation has no relevance under the rationale we employ here. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ANSTEAD, J., and SALMON, MICHAEL H., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Palm Beach Cnty. v. Savage Constr. Corp., 627 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…te was not prejudiced by the amendment, the error was merely a correctable misno mer). See also Sexton v. Panning Lumber Co., 260 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 271 So. 2d 764 (Fla.1972); Thomas v. Taylor Creek Marina of Fort Pierce, Inc., 520 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Francese v. Tamarac Hosp. Corp., 504 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Cf., Michelin Reifenwerke, A.G. v. Roose, 462 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), rev. denied, 475 So. 2d 696 (Fla.1985). Compare, Gray v. Executive Drywall, Inc.,…
-
Barone v. Scandinavian World Cruises (Bahamas), Ltd., 531 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…t is known to the real defendant to be nonexistent and the real defendant is therefore incapable of being misled by the misdescription, amendment should be permitted. The present case is much like Thomas v. Taylor Creek Marina of Fort Pierce, Inc., 520 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). There, the plaintiff filed his complaint against “Taylor Creek Marina, a Florida corporation,” a nonexistent corporation. After the statute of limitations ran, the plaintiff amended his complaint to change the name of the defend…
-
Williams v. The Palm Beach Cmty. Coll. Found., 862 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…ase, and therefore, would relate back to the filing of the initial complaint so as to obviate any statute of limitations concern. This Court has explored this issue in prior cases. For example, in Thomas v. Taylor Creek Marina of Fort Pierce, Inc., 520 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), Thomas was injured at Taylor Creek Marina of Fort Pierce, Inc. which was subsequently sold to Taylor Creek Marina, Inc., the entity on which process was served. Id. at 708. Thomas named “Taylor Creek Marina, a Florida Corporatio…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mrs. Betty Galuppi v. Viele, 232 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Roscell Louis v. S. Broward Hosp. Dist. f/a/o/b/o Mem'l Hosp., 353 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Hohl v. Croom Motorcross, Inc., 358 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Gigi Gil Francese v. Tamarac Hosp. Corp., 504 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Zais v. CF W. Fla., Inc., 505 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Lindsey v. H.H. Raulerson Junior Mem'l Hosp. & Trinidad Garcia, 505 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- 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)