Kopel v. Kopel
117 So. 3d 1147
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Leon and Enrique Kopel were business partners with their father Scharja Kopel in a Dominican Republic textile business; Scharja directed family funds be sent to Florida with Leon, Enrique, and Bernardo Kopel each owning one-third interests in Florida investments.
- In 1988–1989, the family invested $6.6 million to purchase two Florida properties, KOP I (land for a warehouse) and KOP II (a shopping center), with Bernardo as the U.S. citizen-owner of the entities formed as S-corporations.
- Two promissory notes were backdated in 1991 to reflect loans to Leon’s interest in the Florida ventures, though the transactions were investments, not loans.
- Scharja later retired; Leon and Enrique borrowed $15 million to buy out Scharja and formed Nautilus Holdings, Ltd. and Eminence Corporation, NV, securing assets and transferring ownership interests among Leon and Enrique.
- By 1992 relations deteriorated; Leon demanded repayment of funds and Bernardo’s promissory notes; Leon filed suit in 1994 seeking recovery on loans and other theories.
- Trial ultimately yielded a verdict in Leon’s favor on three counts and an unjust enrichment award, but the trial court later amended final judgment and prosecutors appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relation-back and statute of limitations for fifth amended complaint | Leon alleged backdated oral agreement within original timeline | Counts added later were time-barred and did not relate back | Counts not related back; time-barred; reversal warranted |
| Sufficiency of evidence supporting Counts I–III | Leon funded entities and was entitled to repayment/benefit | No direct benefit to individuals; claims fail | Judgment on Counts I–III reversed; no basis for unjust enrichment or loans |
| Unjust enrichment viability | Leon conferred a $5 million benefit | Benefit did not accrue directly to Enrique or Bernardo | Unjust enrichment not supported; reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Lasar Mfg. Co. v. Bachanov, 436 So.2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (abuse of discretion standard for relation-back determinations)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (reasonableness test for trial court discretion)
- Daniels v. Weiss, 385 So.2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (relation-back requires no new cause of action)
- Trumbull Ins. Co. v. Wolentarski, 2 So.3d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (new, distinct claims cannot relate back)
- Livingston v. Malever, 103 Fla. 200, 137 So. 113 (1931) (relation-back limitations framework)