PEARL HAYNES, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTH HIAWASSEE VILLAGE, LTD., ET AL., APPELLEES
PER CURIAM.
Pearl Haynes appeals the dismissal of her amended complaint with prejudice. The trial court’s order stated, inter alia, that her claims were barred by res judica-ta because they were or could have been raised in a 1997 eviction proceeding, Orange County case C097-13258, South Hiawasee Village, Ltd. v. Pearl Haynes.
Haynes argues that many of her claims were not barred because they did not arise until after the eviction proceedings had concluded. The claims included damages for loss or destruction to personal property during the eviction process. Although Haynes made these claims in her initial complaint, she later abandoned them when she requested and was granted the opportunity to amend her complaint. She inexplicably omitted the post eviction claims in the amendment.
Accordingly, we find no error in the order of dismissal and affirm.
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON, GRIFFIN and PLEUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Fla. Comm'n ON Human Relations & Mavis Georgalis, 842 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…ive intent is to focus on the likely consequences of holding a particular time limitation mandatory, in an attempt to ascertain whether those consequences would defeat or promote the purpose of the enactment. J.W. v. Dept. of Children and Families, 812 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (quotations and citations omitted). The legislative intent of the Whistle-blower’s Act is to prevent retaliatory action against employees who disclose misconduct on the part of public officials. Section 112.3187(2), Florida Stat…
-
M.T. and T.G. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 816 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…later than 30 days after the arraignment. This court has recently rejected the contention that the time periods contained in sections 39.506(1) and 39.507(l)(a) are jurisdictional speedy trial periods. In J.W. v. Department of Children & Families, 812 So. 2d 599, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D789 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) this court affirmed an order of the dependency court denying a motion to dismiss. The opinion states: AFFIRMED. See State v. Osborne, 781 So. 2d 1137, 1139-40 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). (“With respect to time-l…