DARRELL KEITH WILSON, SR., APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL M. KADE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND D/B/A THE LAW OFFICES OF PAUL M. KADE, 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.
Darrell Keith Wilson appealed the dismissal of his fourth amended third-party complaint against attorney Paul Kade. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that Wilson's claims constituted compulsory counterclaims that should have been raised in Kade's prior action against Wilson, and Wilson's failure to do so resulted in waiver.
The court held that Wilson's claims constitute compulsory counterclaims under the logical relationship test because they arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as Kade's prior claims. Wilson waived these claims by failing to plead them in Kade's prior action. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing with prejudice after five amendment opportunities.
[1] A claim constitutes a compulsory counterclaim if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not requ…
[2] Under the logical relationship test, a compulsory counterclaim exists when the same aggregate of operative facts serves as the basis of both claims.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A pleading must state as a counterclaim any claim which at the time of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, provided it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction”
States the rule for compulsory counterclaims under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.170(a)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKade had previously brought an action against Wilson that proceeded to final judgment in 2007. Wilson then filed a fourth amended third-party complain…
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 Logical Relationship Test cases and more on FLexlaw
Upon our de novo review, Jackson v. Shakespeare Foundation, Inc., 108 So.3d 587 (Fla. 2013), we affirm the trial court’s order dismissing with prejudice Darrell Keith Wilson, Sr.’s fourth amended third-party complaint against appellee Paul Kade. The trial court concluded, and we agree, that each of the claims asserted therein—even assuming that they stated a cause of action—constituted compulsory counterclaims to a prior action brought by Kade against Wilson.1 See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.170(a) (providing: “A pleading must state as a counterclaim any claim which at the time of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, provided it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction”); B & V Ltd, v. All Dade Gen. Constr., Inc., 662 So.2d 413, 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding that under the logical relationship test, a compulsory counterclaim exists “when the same aggregate of operative facts serves as the basis of both claims.” (quoting Neil v. South Fla. Auto Painters, Inc., 397 So.2d 1160, 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981))). In addition, we agree with the trial court that Kade’s prior action against Wilson had already proceeded to final judgment in 2007 and that Wilson’s failure to plead the compulsory counterclaims in that prior action resulted in a waiver of those claims. See Londono v. Turkey Creek, Inc., 609 So.2d 14, 19 (Fla. 1992) (holding that the failure to raise a compulsory counterclaim in the first suit will result in a waiver of that claim); Bracha Holding, Inc. v. U.S. Small Bus. Admin., 800 So.2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Javier H. Londono, M.D. v. Turkey Creek, Inc., 609 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1992)
- Jackson v. The Shakespeare Found., Inc., 108 So. 3d 587 (Fla. 2013)
- Grove Isle Ass'n, Inc. v. Grove Isle Assocs., LLLP, 137 So. 3d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Miami Beach Cmty. Church, Inc. v. Stanton, 611 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Maye G. Neil v. S. Fla. Auto Painters, Inc., 397 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Coral Gables Distrib., Inc. v. Milich, 992 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- B & V Ltd. & B & V Phase I Ltd. v. ALL Dade Gen. Constr., Inc., 662 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Bracha Holding, Inc. v. United States Small Bus. Admin., 800 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)