151 So. 3d 511
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Eugene Smith, appearing pro se, sued Reginald Bruster and later joined David Morgan, alleging Escambia County sheriffs improperly seized property and that forfeiture proceedings under Florida law did not occur as required by the Contraband Forfeiture Act.
- Bruster moved to dismiss for failure to join Hattie Smith (indispensable party) and for failure to state a claim; attached quitclaim deeds dated October 13, 2005, showing transfer of ownership to the Sheriff’s Office, which Bruster witnessed.
- Smith sought to amend to add Hattie Smith; amendment granted; amended complaint added Hattie as an involuntary plaintiff and Habitat for Humanity as a defendant; Bruster reargued statute of limitations, asserting accrual on October 13, 2005.
- Trial court dismissed the amended complaint as time-barred, holding actions for return of real property must be filed within seven years and that adding Hattie Smith could not relate back under Arnwine v. Huntington Nat. Bank.
- Appellate court reversed as to Bruster and Morgan, remanding for further proceedings to determine accrual date for fraud with due diligence and to permit Hattie Smith’s addition to relate back; summary judgment in favor of Habitat for Humanity remained undisturbed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the fraud claim accrue? | Smith argues accrual delayed until discovery. | Bruster contends accrual was Oct. 13, 2005. | Remand to determine accrual date with due diligence. |
| Whether Hattie Smith can be added and relate back? | Smith seeks to add Hattie as indispensable party. | Amendment should not relate back; statute barred. | Amendment should relate back; Lubricated by overlapping interests. |
| Is the action time-barred against Bruster and Morgan? | Fraud action may exceed limitations if accrual was later. | Limitations period expired; dismissal proper. | Remand to resolve accrual and relation-back issues; final judgment reversed as to Bruster and Morgan. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arnwine v. Huntington Nat. Bank., N.A., 818 So.2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (relation-back when no prejudice to defendant)
- Darden v. Beverly Health & Rehab., 763 So.2d 542 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (relation-back considerations)
- Schwartz v. Wilt Chamberlain’s of Boca Raton, Ltd., 725 So.2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (factors for relation back; overlapping interests)
- Kozich v. Shahady, 702 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (relation-back considerations)
- Palm Beach County v. Savage Constr. Corp., 627 So.2d 1332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (ownership overlap supports relation back)
- Arch Specialty Ins. Co. v. Kubicki Draper, LLP, 137 So.3d 487 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (liberal construction of pleadings; relation back)
- St. John’s Hosp. & Health Ctr. v. Toomey, 610 So.2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (liberal amendment doctrine)
- Cabot v. Clearwater Constr. Co., 89 So.2d 662 (Fla.1956) (pleading objectives; truth-seeking over technicalities)
- First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Wisconsin v. Dade Fed. Sav. & Loan, 403 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (fraud accrual where discovery occurs)
- Hudak v. Economic Research Analysts, Inc., 499 F.2d 996 (5th Cir.1974) (fraud discovery framework)
- Bauld v. J.A. Jones Constr. Co., 357 So.2d 401 (Fla. 1978) (statute accrual principles)
- Brugiere v. Credit Commerciale France, 679 So.2d 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (discovery rule in fraud)