Caduceus Properties, LLC v. William G. Graney, P.E.
137 So. 3d 987
| Fla. | 2014Background
- Caduceus Properties, LLC sought HVAC-related damages in a building it owned and leased to TNC.
- Gordon initially sued for defects; Gordon later impleaded KTD and Graney as third-party defendants under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.180.
- Gordon’s third-party claims against KTD/Graney were dismissed, and Gordon later bankruptcy stayed proceedings.
- In 2010, after the original statute of limitations had expired, Caduceus and TNC amended to add KTD and Graney as party defendants and to add TNC as a plaintiff.
- The trial court allowed the amended pleading; KTD/Graney argued the amendment was time-barred by the statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an amended complaint naming a previously third-party defendant as a party relates back under 1.190(c). | Graney contends no relation back; amendment barred by time. | Graney argues relation back is limited to mistakes/misnomers; not applicable here. | Yes; relates back if filed before expiration and same conduct/occurrence. |
| Whether the third-party defendant must be timely named for relation back to apply. | Amendment relates back because third-party defendants were impleaded timely. | Relating back should not expand coverage after limitations. | Timeliness of third-party impleader is required; relation back applies when timely and same transaction. |
| Whether public policy favoring liberal amendments supports relation back in this context. | Policy favors merits-resolution through liberal amendments. | Prejudice to defendants must be avoided; informality should not sidestep time limits. | Favoring liberal amendments; relation back consistent with policy and fairness. |
| Whether allowing relation back affects prejudice or trial management concerns. | No prejudice since case continued and defendants were already involved. | Late amendment could prejudice defendants; continuance was possible. | Trial court discretion preserved; no undue prejudice shown in this case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gatins v. Sebastian Inlet Tax District, 453 So.2d 871 (Fla. 1984) (amended complaint against third-party defendant timely if impleaded during limitations period and same issues)
- Graney v. Caduceus Properties, LLC, 91 So.3d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (First District limited relation back to mistake/misnomer; conflict resolved)
- Fabbiano v. Demings, 91 So.3d 893 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (relation-back liberally construed; fair notice emphasized)
- Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So.3d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (liberal application of relation-back doctrine; fair notice test)
- Bill Williams Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc. v. Haymarket Coop. Bank, 592 So.2d 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (amendments allowed to promote justice unless prejudice shown)
- Adams v. Knabb Turpentine Co., 435 So.2d 944 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (resolving doubts in favor of amendment; policy to resolve on merits)
- James v. Dr. P. Phillips Co., 155 So.661 (Fla. 1934) (noting longstanding precedent on amendments and party status)
- Epstein & Bro. v. First Nat’l Bank of Tampa, 110 So.354 (Fla. 1926) (amendment changing party status not introducing new party or action)
- Totura & Co. v. Williams, 754 So.2d 671 (Fla. 2000) (purpose of statutes of limitations to prevent prejudice)
- Rakes v. Fairmont Mobile Homes, Inc., 358 S.E.2d 236 (W. Va. 1987) (outside Florida; cited for comparative approach to relation back)