Graney v. Caduceus Properties, LLC
91 So. 3d 220
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Caduceus Properties, LLC and Tallahassee Neurological Clinic sued Gordon for HVAC defects, with Gordon later naming Graney and KTD via third-party complaint in 2007.
- HVAC system failures were known by Caduceus/TNC by September 2005, after occupancy in August 2005.
- A four-year limitations period in §95.11(3)(c) Florida Statutes began by September 2009.
- Caduceus/TNC filed a direct action against Graney and KTD on June 3, 2010, nearly nine months after the limitations period expired.
- Trial court denied involuntary dismissal; judgment entered for Caduceus/TNC; Graney and KTD appealed.
- Court holds the direct action against Graney and KTD did not relate back to the original complaint and is time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the direct action relate back to the original complaint? | Direct action relates back under Rule 1.190(c) because it arose from the same conduct. | Relation back does not apply when adding new parties; statute of limitations bars the claim. | No; direct action did not relate back; time-barred. |
| May adding Graney and KTD as defendants be treated as a misnomer or mistake to relate back? | Amendment should relate back as misnomer when timely sued; Graney/KTD were identities known earlier. | No misnomer; amendment adds new parties, not mere misnomer. | Relation back not permissible; not a misnomer mistake. |
| Should Gatins v. Sebastian Inlet Tax Dist. be applied to permit relation back? | Gatins allows timely third-party to permit later direct action. | Gatins is not controlling; should not be adopted here. | Court declines Gatins rationale; relation back rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gatins v. Sebastian Inlet Tax Dist., 453 So.2d 871 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (direct action may relate back when third-party sued timely)
- Cabot v. Clearwater Construction, 89 So.2d 662 (Fla.1956) (misnomer vs. new party; distinction governs relation back)
- Rayner v. Aircraft Spruce-Advantage, Inc., 38 So.3d 817 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (relation back doctrine; unity/notice considerations)
- Kozich v. Shahady, 702 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (unity of interest in relation back analysis)
- Anderson v. Emro Mktg. Co., 550 So.2d 531 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (misnomer vs. adding party; timely notice required)
- Schwartz v. Metro Limo, Inc., 683 So.2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (misnomer and unity considerations in relation back)
- Gray v. Executive Drywall, Inc., 520 So.2d 619 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (misnomer vs. new defendant; caution against adding new parties)