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, APPELLEE
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 Johnsons appealed the dismissal of their malpractice counterclaim against their former law firm. The court reversed the trial court's dismissal based on statute of limitations grounds, finding the trial court erred in going outside the pleadings to apply the statute of limitations defense and in denying the Johnsons' motion to amend their counterclaim.
The trial court erred in dismissing the counterclaim with prejudice based on the statute of limitations defense because it improperly went outside the pleadings to determine the effect of that defense, and the trial court also erred in denying the Johnsons' motion to amend their counterclaim.
[1] An order granting summary judgment against a defendant's counterclaim and third-party complaint is a final, appealable order when it fully resolves the claims against one…
[2] A judgment that is final as to one party in an action is appealable as to all parties to avoid multiple appeals from the same order.
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“the trial court erred in going outside the pleadings to determine the effect of the statute of limitations defense, and in denying the Johnsons' motion to amend their counterclaim”
States the court's holding on the two principal errors committed by the trial court
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAllen, Knudsen, DeBoest, Edwards & Rhodes, P.A. sued the Johnsons for unpaid attorneys' fees from litigation in 1984 and 1985. The Johnsons countercla…
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 Malpractice cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
Philip and Virginia Johnson appeal a final order dismissing their counterclaim with prejudice. We reverse.
Allen, Knudsen, DeBoest, Edwards & Rhodes, P.A., sued the Johnsons for attorneys’ fees earned by litigation in 1984 and 1985. The Johnsons counterclaimed for malpractice committed during the litigation and during real property transactions giving rise to the litigation. The Johnsons also filed a third party complaint against George Swartz, who was associated with the law firm at the time of the malpractice. The trial court, in a single order, dismissed the counterclaim and the third party complaint based on the defense of statute of limitations. The trial court also denied the Johnsons’ motion to amend their counterclaim. The Johnsons attempted to appeal the nonfinal order dismissing their counterclaim, but 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 stated in Johnson II: that is, that the trial court erred in going outside the pleadings to determine the effect of the statute of limitations defense, and in denying the John-sons’ motion to amend their counterclaim.
Because this decision on the procedural issues is dispositive, we need not address the Johnsons’ other issues on appeal.
We therefore vacate the trial court’s order dismissing the counterclaim with prejudice and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
RYDER, A.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)…n, DeBoest, Edwards, & Rhodes, P.A. (Allen, Knudsen), the other appellee herein. We therefore reverse the trial court’s order in part. This case is before us for the fourth time on appeal. Johnson v. Allen, Knudsen, DeBoest, Edwards & Rhodes, P.A., 580 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), hereinafter to be referred to as Johnson III, was the third such appeal. In Johnson III, this [*508] court succinctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case as follows: Allen, Knudsen ... sued the Johns…
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. Allen, 566 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)