D.H. v. Adept Community Services, Inc.
271 So. 3d 870
| Fla. | 2018Background
- Mother with noncongenital cerebral palsy and seizure disorder hired Adept and B.E.A.R.R. for support; she gave birth to twin boys in Sept. 2005.
- In April 2006, after firing a live-in aide, an anonymous complaint led to dependency proceedings; the Twins were removed to grandparents' temporary custody and a guardian ad litem (GALP/individual) represented them in the dependency case.
- Dependency adjudication occurred May 16, 2006; protective supervision ended and grandparents were appointed permanent guardians on April 13, 2007. Medical records later diagnosed sensory disorder (Mar. 15, 2007) attributable to prior abuse/neglect.
- Grandparents (as next friends/permanent guardians) sued Adept and B.E.A.R.R. for negligent failure to protect the Twins; complaint filed Nov. 22, 2010.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on statute-of-limitations grounds (4-year period). Second District affirmed, holding tolling did not apply because a guardian ad litem existed in the dependency case.
- Florida Supreme Court quashed the Second District: held the tolling statute tolled the limitations period until grandparents were appointed permanent guardians on Apr. 13, 2007, so the suit was timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual — when cause of action accrued for limitations | Accrual delayed until injury/diagnosis (Twins) | Accrual when last element occurred (by removal Apr. 11, 2006); discovery irrelevant | Court did not decide accrual (moot) because tolling made claim timely |
| Tolling under §95.051(1)(h) — effect of existing guardian ad litem | Tolling applies because no guardian/guardian ad litem existed for the negligence suit | Tolling does not apply because a guardian ad litem (in dependency) existed | Tolling applies: no guardian ad litem existed in the negligence proceeding, so limitations tolled until Apr. 13, 2007 |
| Meaning/scope of "guardian ad litem" in tolling statute | Term means a guardian ad litem appointed for the particular proceeding in which the claim to be tolled would be brought | Term includes any guardian ad litem appointed to represent the child in any concurrent proceeding | Held it means a guardian ad litem appointed for that specific proceeding; a dependency GALP did not defeat tolling for the negligence action |
| Preservation/fundamental-error — may Court reach guardian-authority issue not raised below | Twins asked Court to consider guardian's lack of authority to sue despite not having argued it below | Defendants argued issue was waived/abandoned on appeal; district court declined to decide | Court concluded issue preserved insofar as Second District ruled on tolling and resolved tolling on the merits; did not decide separate question whether a GAL with authority to sue would defeat tolling |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Monahan, 832 So.2d 708 (Fla. 2002) (accrual rule and limits on grafting delayed-discovery into general accrual statute)
- Hearndon v. Graham, 767 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 2000) (recognized narrow delayed-discovery exception for child sexual-abuse claims)
- Drake v. Island Community Church, Inc., 462 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (cited by parties on accrual/delayed-discovery principles)
- S.A.P. v. State Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 704 So.2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (policy/precedent cited on minor-plaintiff limitations issues)
- Doe No. 3 v. Nur-Ul-Islam Academy, Inc., 217 So.3d 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (recent DCA authority addressing similar tolling/accrual tensions)
- Kingsley v. Kingsley, 623 So.2d 780 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (minors lack capacity to sue; representation requirement)