Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

490 So. 2d 1283

490 So.2d 1283

11 Fla.L.Weekly 1323

Henrion v. Shook

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 11, 1986

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1986-06-11

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 1991

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The basic test employed by the courts in all actions involving a change of parties after the statute of limitations has run is the effect such change has on the original cause of action, since this is the test which is used in determining the permissibility of amended pleadings generally. The general rule is that whether an amendment making changes in the parties to the suit relates back to the bringing of the suit for the purposes of determining the application of the statute of limitations depends upon the nature of the matter asserted by the amendment, i.e., whether the amendment states a new cause of action or merely recites in a different form the cause of action stated in the original pleading. An amendment to plaintiff's complaint changing the parties to the suit so long as it does not introduce a new cause of action or make a new demand or substantially change the cause of action but merely restates in a different form the cause of action originally pleaded relates back to the commencement of the action so as to avoid the operation of the statute of limitations, and may therefore be made even after the statute of limitations has run. But where the amendment by the change of the parties introduces a new cause of action or one which is different and distinct from that originally set up, the new pleading is deemed equivalent to the bringing of a new action, and there is no relation back to the filing of the original pleading, which will prevent the statute of limitations”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 580 So. 2d 171 - Roger Dean Chevrolet, Inc. v. Lashley

Relies on 232 So. 2d 408 - Galuppi v. Viele · 239 So. 2d 69 - Lindy's of Orlando, Inc. v. United Electric Co. · 238 So. 2d 109 - State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Charles Taylor Marine, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-06-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

LETTS, Judge.

¶1In this case, the trial court dismissed an amended complaint holding that the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations. We reverse.

¶2The appellee’s position is that the third amended complaint was more than a mere substitution of parties and that new issues of both liability and damages were raised. We disagree.

¶3The general rule is that whether an amendment, which makes changes in parties to the suit, relates back to the bringing of the suit for determining the application of the statute of limitations depends on the nature of the matter asserted by the amendment. An amendment which does not substantially change a cause of action may be made even after the statute of limitations has run. See Lindy's of Orlando, Inc. v. United Electric Company, 239 So.2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); and Galuppi v. Viele, 232 So.2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), cert. denied 238 So.2d 109 (Fla.1970).

¶4Without protracted discussion, it is our view that the amendment before us now essentially pled the same cause of action. Therefore, the amendment should have been allowed and the statute of limitations did not bar the amendment.

¶5REVERSED AND REMANDED IN ACCORDANCE HEREWITH.

HERSEY, C.J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
/490/so2d/1283 · .json · Public domain