BARRY SEGALL AND EDWARD SEGALL, APPELLANTS,
v.
FINE JACOBSON SCHWARTZ NASH BLOCK & ENGLAND, P.A., 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.
Barry and Edward Segall appealed a summary judgment dismissing their legal malpractice action against a law firm. The court reversed, holding that the plaintiffs' amended complaint, which corrected the law firm's designation from partnership to professional association, related back to the original timely-filed complaint and was not barred by the statute of limitations.
The amended complaint relates back to the original complaint because the amendment corrected only a misnomer regarding the defendant's character as a professional association rather than a partnership, rather than asserting a new claim. Therefore, the amended complaint was not barred by the statute of limitations.
[1] An amendment correcting a misnomer of a defendant's legal character relates back to the original complaint if the original complaint was timely filed.
[2] A plaintiff may correct a mistaken designation of a defendant as a partnership to a professional association through an amended complaint.
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“Although inartfully done, we conclude that the plaintiffs Barry and Edward Segall attempted below to correct a mistaken designation of the defendant Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash, Block and England, P.A. as a partnership in the original complaint”
Establishes that the court recognized the plaintiffs' intent to correct a misnomer rather than assert a new claim
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs Barry and Edward Segall filed a legal malpractice action against Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash, Block and England. The original compla…
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
PER CURIAM.
The final summary judgment under review in this legal malpractice action is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to: (1) reinstate the defendant Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash, Block and England, P.A. as a party defendant in this case, and (2) dismiss any individual shareholders of the defendant Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash, Block, and England, P.A. who may still remain in the case as party defendants on a partnership theory.
Although inartfully done, we conclude that the plaintiffs Barry and Edward Se-gall attempted below to correct a mistaken designation of the defendant Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash, Block and England, P.A. as a partnership in the original complaint [in which inter alia all shareholders of the defendant were joined on a partnership theory] by filing an amended complaint in which the above defendant was correctly sued as a professional association [although without dropping, as they should have, the individual shareholders of the defendant who were being sued on a partnership theory]. Because this amendment did no more than correct what was, in effect, a misnomer of the defendant as to its character as a professional association, rather than a partnership, the amendment in question relates back to the original complaint which was filed within the statute of limitations.
Therefore, the trial court was in error in entering final summary judgment for the defendant on the amended complaint, filed outside the statute of limitations, on the basis of its being barred by the said statute. Cabot v. Clearwater Constr. Co., 89 So. 2d 662 (Fla.1956); Thomas v. Taylor Creek Marina of Ft. Pierce, Inc., 520 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Francese v. Tamarac Hosp. Corp., 504 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Sexton v. Panning Lumber Co., 260 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 271 So. 2d 764 (Fla.1972).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kozich v. Shahady, 702 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…to arrive at the truth. It is no longer a game of chess in which the technique of the maneuver captures the prize. Cabot v. Clearwater Constr. Co., 89 So. 2d 662, 664 (Fla.1956). See also Segall v. Fine Jacobson Schwartz Nash Block & England, P.A., 613 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Kozich has demonstrated that Houston & Shahady, P.A. and Houston, Shahady & Hatch, P.A. share numerous substantial identities in interest. For example, both P.A.s operate out of the same office address and use the same phone and…
-
Segall v. Segall, 632 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…gainst Fine Jacobson Schwartz Nash Block & England, P.A., which represented the appellants in the appeal. This court recently reversed a summary judgment entered in favor of Fine Jacobson. Segall v. Fine Jacobson Schwartz Nash Block & England, P.A., 613 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). . In their motion for summary judgment Segall and Gold also argued that the appellants were prohibited from maintaining the malpractice suit as they had assigned their rights to Lawrence H. Rogovin, P.A. The trial court’s order…
-
Daly v. Isadore Spiegel, 689 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…CURIAM. Affirmed. United States Fire Ins. Co. v. C & C Beauty Sales, Inc., 674 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); McCormick v. Lomar Industries, Inc., 612 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Segall v. Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash, Block & England, P.A., 613 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Overseas Equipment Co., Inc. v. Aceros Arquitectonicos, 374 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Miami Auto Auc [*409] tion, Inc. v. Friendly Enterprises, Inc., 257 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Herold v. Computer Components Int’l, Inc…
Authorities Cited
- Cabot v. Clearwater Constr. Co., 89 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 1956)
- Sexton v. Panning Lumber Co., 260 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Gigi Gil Francese v. Tamarac Hosp. Corp., 504 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Thomas v. Taylor Creek Marina OF Fort Pierce, Inc., 520 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Nat'l Mattress Co. v. Rowell, 271 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1972)
- Panning Lumber & Supply Co. v. Sexton, 271 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1972)