Leon Kopel v. Bernardo Kopel
229 So. 3d 812
| Fla. | 2017Background
- Leon Kopel sued his brother Enrique and nephew Bernardo in 1994 over alleged unpaid loans and promissory notes stemming from family business dealings; litigation lasted over two decades.
- At a 2008 trial (mistrial), Leon for the first time asserted an oral-agreement theory that Enrique agreed to pay $5 million in exchange for Leon’s business interests; that theory was added in a fourth/fifth amended complaint (2008–2009).
- The fifth amended complaint included three counts: (I) a $5 million loan to Bernardo, (II) breach of oral promise by respondents to repay $5 million (and release Leon’s claims), and (III) unjust enrichment.
- Respondents moved to dismiss and for summary judgment asserting the breach-of-oral-promise claim was time-barred because the 1991–1993 oral promise fell outside the four-year statute of limitations and the 2009 amendment did not "relate back" to the 1994 complaint.
- The Third District reversed the trial court, holding the fifth amended complaint alleged a new cause of action that could not relate back and also concluding insufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict; the Florida Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an amended complaint asserting a new legal theory can "relate back" under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(c) so as to avoid the statute of limitations | Leon: Relation-back should follow rule text — an amendment relates back if it arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the original complaint, even if it asserts a new claim | Respondents: Fifth amended complaint states a new, distinct cause of action (oral-promise theory) and therefore cannot relate back; statute of limitations bars it | Majority: Quash Third District; adopt rule-text approach — new claims may relate back if they arise from the same conduct/transaction/occurrence as the original pleading (approve Caduceus/Fabbiano/Armiger line) |
| Whether the trial evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdict on breach of oral promise | Leon: Testimony from Leon, his mother, and circumstantial admissions by Enrique provided sufficient evidence for the jury to find an oral promise and breach | Respondents: No competent evidence showed a direct benefit conferred to defendants or any oral promise; judgment should be entered as a matter of law | Majority: Sufficient evidence exists to sustain the jury verdict on breach of oral promise; reverse Third District’s directed-verdict conclusion |
| Whether the Third District’s bright-line "new cause of action" rule is correct | Leon: Bright-line rule conflicts with rule 1.190(c) and prior cases permitting relation back when facts are same | Respondents: Bright-line rule prevents unfair surprise and preserves statutes of limitations | Majority: Disapprove bright-line rule to the extent it bars relation back categorically; focus on factual nexus instead |
| Remedy and disposition | Leon: Remand to enforce jury verdicts and preserve judgment supportable on any valid theory | Respondents: Dismiss time-barred claims and enter judgment for defendants | Held: Quash Third District opinion; affirm that amended claims can relate back when same conduct/transaction/occurrence; remand for proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Caduceus Properties, LLC v. Graney, 137 So.3d 987 (Fla. 2014) (relation-back allowed where earlier pleading put defendant on notice of same conduct/transaction; trial court discretion preserved)
- Fabbiano v. Demings, 91 So.3d 893 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (an amended claim asserting a different legal theory may relate back when it arises from the same occurrence)
- Armiger v. Associated Outdoor Clubs, Inc., 48 So.3d 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (relation back permitted despite new cause of action where factual scenario gave fair notice)
- Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So.3d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (rule 1.190(c) liberally construed; amended legal theories related back when factual situation unchanged)
- Peoples Nat’l Bank of Commerce v. First Union Nat’l Bank of Fla., N.A., 667 So.2d 876 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (unjust enrichment requires a benefit conferred directly on the defendant)