DELMARIE DONALD
v.
MRYLENE BARRERA

Fla. 3d DCA | 2023-10-25
No. 2023-0683
350 So. 3d 465 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2023) Positive Treatment
Cited by 28 cases

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.

Holding

Claims for fraud and negligence are barred by Florida's four-year statute of limitations when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the facts giving rise to the cause of action more than four years before filing suit.

Headnotes

[1] Claims founded upon fraud accrue when the facts giving rise to the cause of action were discovered or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence.

[2] A claim for fraud is barred by the statute of limitations if it is not filed within four years of the claimant's discovery or constructive discovery of the facts giving r…

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
Facts & Procedural History

Donald sued Barrera, the principal of three corporations, alleging Barrera fraudulently induced her to work for the corporations by making false promi…

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.

Topics
Accrual Of Cause Of Action Due Diligence Fraudulent Inducement Fraud

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Accrual Of Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed October 25, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0683 Lower Tribunal No. 20-27980

________________

Delmarie Donald,

Appellant,

vs.

Mrylene Barrera, et al.,

Appellees. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose M. Rodriguez, Judge. Delmarie Donald, in proper person. Marcus Law Center, LLC, and Nicholas M. Vicente and Alexandra D. Salvador, for appellees. Before LOGUE, C.J., and SCALES and HENDON, JJ. PER CURIAM. Appellant Delmarie Donald (“Donald”) challenges a final summary judgment adjudicating her claims – sounding in fraud and negligence – that appellee Myrlene Barrera (“Barrera”), the principal of three corporations,1 misled Donald into working for these corporations with false promises of company ownership. On March 3, 2023, the trial court conducted a hearing on Barrera and the corporations’ summary judgment motion.2 Ross Dress for Less, Inc., 350 So. 3d 465, 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). Upon our review of the record, we agree with the trial court that, even if Barrera had fraudulently induced Donald to work for the corporations based on false promises of an ownership interest in them, any such claims accrued upon Donald being made aware that she held no ownership interest in any of the three corporations.3 See § 95.031(2)(a), Fla.

Footnotes
1 The corporations, co-appellees of Barrera in this appeal, are Synergy Dialysis, Inc., N’Sync Consulting Corp., and Synergy Dialysis of Pembroke Pines, LLC. 2 We have not been provided a transcript of this hearing. 3 We express no opinion as to the merits of Donald’s claims. Stat. (2020) (“An action founded upon fraud . . . must be begun within the period prescribed in this chapter, with the period running from the time the facts giving rise to the cause of action were discovered or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence . . . .”). Because the summary judgment evidence establishes that Donald was aware she held no ownership interest in the corporations earlier than four years from the December 31, 2020 filing of Donald’s lawsuit, her claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. See §§ 95.031(2)(a), 95.11(3)(j), Fla. Stat. (2020) (fraud); § 95.11(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2020) (negligence). Affirmed.
2 On March 13, 2023, the trial court entered a detailed, eleven-page summary judgment order, concluding, inter alia, that all of Donald’s claims are barred by the applicable four-year statutes of limitation. We review de novo a trial court’s order granting final summary judgment. See Ibarra v.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (28 total)

  • Delmarie Donald v. Mrylene Barrera, 350 So. 3d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
    …judgment order, concluding, inter alia, that all of Donald’s claims are barred by the applicable four-year statutes of limitation. We review de novo a trial court’s order granting final summary judgment. See Ibarra v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc., 350 So. 3d 465, 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). Upon our review of the record, we agree with the trial court that, even if Barrera had fraudulently induced Donald to work for the corporations based on false promises of an ownership interest in them, any such claims ac…
  • Omer Bechor v. Simcenter, Inc., 394 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
  • All Dade Fences, Inc. v. Ortega, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D186 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
    …g and subsequently denied the request for fees after concluding that the proposals were ambiguous. This appeal followed. I. Summary Judgment We review de novo the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. See Ibarra v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc., 350 So. 3d 465, 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“The standard of review on orders granting final summary judgment is de novo.” (quoting Orozco v. McCormick 105, LLC, 276 So. 3d 932, 935 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019))). In Florida, “there is a rebuttable presumption of negligence th…

Previewing 3 of 28 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw