PHILIP H. JOHNSON AND VIRGINIA E. JOHNSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
ALLEN, KNUDSEN, DEBOEST, EDWARDS & RHODES, P.A., F/K/A ALLEN, KNUDSEN, SWARTZ, DEBOEST, RHODES & EDWARDS, P.A., A FLORIDA PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, AND GEORGE T. SWARTZ, 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.
The court held that a trial court cannot consider pleadings from a separate action when determining if a claim is time-barred and that leave to amend should be liberally granted.
The Johnsons counterclaimed against their law firm for malpractice and impleaded a former partner in a third-party complaint. The trial court dismisse…
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 Third Party Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
This action was begun by the appellee, Allen, Knudsen, DeBoest, Edwards & Rhodes, P.A., against the Johnsons for the payment of legal fees. The Johnsons counterclaimed alleging legal malpractice against the appellee and in a third party complaint impleaded one of the law firm's former partners, Swartz. The trial court dismissed the Johnsons’ counterclaim and the third party complaint in a single order. The Johnsons appealed that order but we dismissed that aspect of the appeal seeking review of the order terminating the counterclaim on the ground it was not appeal-able. The appeal has continued, however, as to the dismissal of the third party complaint. We reverse.
In assessing the sufficiency of the third party complaint, the trial court drew upon and in its dismissal order alluded to earlier pleadings arising from a separate action involving issues related to those at hand. It determined that the Johnsons’ third party complaint was time barred and dismissed it with prejudice. The Johnsons’ unsuccessfully sought leave in a motion for rehearing to amend the third party complaint.
Our jurisprudence governing motions to dismiss does not permit reference to the pleadings in a separate and distinct action in determining whether the subject proceeding is barred by a statute of limitation. Hofer v. Ross, 481 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Of equal certainty is the proposition that leave to amend is to be liberally granted. The trial court erred in its failure to observe the foregoing principles.
Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order dismissing the third party complaint and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. Allen, 621 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…t this court denied the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Johnson v. Allen, Knudsen, et al., 557 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (Johnson I). The order however was final as to Swartz, and this court accepted review in Johnson v. Allen, Knudsen, et al., 566 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (Johnson II). Thereafter, the law firm dismissed its complaint,2 and the order of dismissal of the Johnsons’ counterclaim became final and appealable. This order is before us again for review. We reverse for the same reasons stat…1 / 2
-
Johnson v. Allen, 580 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…t this court denied the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Johnson v. Allen, Knudsen, et al., 557 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (Johnson I). The order however was final as to Swartz, and this court accepted review in Johnson v. Allen, Knudsen, et al., 566 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (Johnson II). Thereafter, the law firm dismissed its complaint, and the order of dismissal of the Johnsons’ counterclaim became final and appealable. This order is before us again for review. We reverse for the same reasons stat…
Authorities Cited
- Hofer v. Ross, 481 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)