WILLIAM JOSEPH WICHMANN v. CONRAD & SCHERER, LLP, 237 So. 3d 1018

Wichmann resigned from his partnership at Conrad & Scherer in February 2009; Conrad alleged he took client files and used firm resources to transfer clients to a new firm.
Conrad sued Wichmann in a multi-count complaint (operative fifth amended complaint, April 2016) asserting breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conspiracy, defamation, and seeking damages and a constructive trust.
Wichmann filed an answer asserting five counterclaims: counts 1–3 alleged Conrad engaged in fraudulent/illegal practices and breached duties to Wichmann during his employment; counts 4–5 alleged post-resignation tortious interference with his employment at RRA.
Conrad moved to dismiss all counterclaims as permissive and time-barred; the trial court dismissed all five with prejudice.
On appeal, the Fourth District reviewed whether each counterclaim was compulsory (arising from the same transaction or occurrence) and whether permissive claims were barred by the statute of limitations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counts 1–3 are compulsory counterclaims	Wichmann: claims arise from same employment relationship and facts surrounding resignation	Conrad: no logical relationship to its complaint; claims are separate	Counts 1–3 are compulsory; appeal as to them dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because dismissal not appealable until final disposition of original claim
Whether counts 4–5 are compulsory or permissive	Wichmann: tortious-interference claims relate to overall dispute with Conrad	Conrad: post-resignation conduct is a separate occurrence and thus permissive	Counts 4–5 are permissive (occurred after resignation) and not logically related to Conrad’s complaint
Whether permissive counterclaims are time-barred	Wichmann: (implicitly) claims timely or tolled	Conrad: claims arose in 2009 and thus exceed applicable limitations period	Counts 4–5 barred by statute of limitations; trial court’s dismissal of those counts affirmed

Londono v. Turkey Creek, Inc., 609 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1992) (adopting the logical-relationship test for compulsory counterclaims)
Neil v. S. Fla. Auto Painters, Inc., 397 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 1981) (discussing operative-facts analysis used in logical-relationship test)
Stone v. Pembroke Lakes Trailer Park, Inc., 268 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) (broad interpretation of "transaction or occurrence" to avoid multiplicity of suits)
4040 IBIS Circle, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 193 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (order dismissing compulsory counterclaim not immediately appealable)
Callaway Land & Cattle Co., Inc. v. Banyon Lakes C. Corp., 831 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (post-breach tort claims are permissive when distinct from plaintiff’s contract-focused complaint)
DuBreuil v. James, 365 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (permissive counterclaims barred if beyond statute of limitations)
Effs v. Sony Pictures Home Entm’t, Inc., 197 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (tortious interference claim barred by four-year limitations period)