LORENCE WOODWARD, APPELLANT,
v.
ORATOR E. WOODWARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE MARY T. WOODWARD TRUST OF 1972, SERENA WOODWARD TRUST OF 2002, AND THE EL BRAVO TRUST OF 2002, 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.
A trustee obtained summary judgment against a beneficiary based on res judicata and laches, but the appellate court reversed, finding neither defense applied because the facts and cause of action differed from a prior case and the statute of limitations had not begun to run until the trustee provided an accounting.
The court held that neither res judicata nor laches applies because the facts and events giving rise to the current action differ from prior actions (so identity of cause of action is absent), and laches is inapplicable because the statute of limitations did not begin to run until after the trustee provided the 2011 accounting.
[1] Res judicata does not apply when the facts and events giving rise to the current action are different from a prior action, even if there are minor differences in the clai…
[2] Laches is inapplicable when the statute of limitations did not begin to run until after a relevant accounting was provided.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Because the facts and events that gave rise to the 2012 action are different from the 1996 action, identity of the cause of action is not present, and res judicata does not apply”
Establishes that res judicata does not bar the action because the causes of action are not identical
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Lorence Woodward, a beneficiary, brought an action against Appellee Orator Woodward, individually and as trustee of multiple trusts, based o…
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 Laches cases and more on FLexlaw
This case involves the trial court’s grant of Appellee Orator Woodward’s (“Trustee”) motion for summary judgment. The trial court held that both res judicata and laches barred the action brought by Appellant Lorence Woodward (“Beneficiary”). Because neither of these grounds apply in this case, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
A detailed analysis as to why neither res judicata nor laches applies is unnecessary. This Court has recently considered a case brought by Beneficiary’s brother against Trustee based on the same conduct raised here by Beneficiary, See Woodward v. Woodward, 192 So.3d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).. Although there, are minor differences in the claims brought by the brother in Woodward and Beneficiary here, the conclusion that, “[bjecause the facts and events that gave rise to the 2012 action are different from the 1996 action, identity of the cause of action is not present, and res judicata does not apply,” is similarly supported in the instant case. Id, at 531, Similarly, laches is inapplicable because , the statute of limitations did not begin to run until after the Trustee provided the 2011 accounting to Beneficiary. See id.. at 531-32. Even to the extent that Beneficiary may have been aware of the transfer of assets before that date, such a determination requires “clear and convincing evidence” and is therefore inappropriate to make at the summary' judgment stage. Id: at 532.
Because this case is indistinguishable from our earlier Woodwwrd opinion on any meaningful grounds, we reverse and remand for the reasons set forth above and described more fully in that earlier opinion.
Reversed and remanded for farther proceedings.
CIKLIN, C.J., TAYLOR and FORST, JJ„ concur.