4D04-530-Williams, et al. v. Avery Development Company-Boca Raton, et al.

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Fourth District Court of Appeal » 2005 » 4D04-530-Williams, et al. v. Avery Development Company-Boca Raton, et al.

State: Florida

Court: Florida Southern District Court

Docket No: 4D04-530

Case Date: 03/16/2005

Plaintiff: 4D04-530-Williams, et al.

Defendant: Avery Development Company-Boca Raton, et al.

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2005 LARRY O. WILLIAMS and SHARON K. WILLIAMS, Appellants, v. AVERY DEVELOPMENT COMPANYBOCA RATON and AVERY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Appellees. Williamses asserted claims for breach of contract and conspiracy to defraud and fraudulently induce contractual relationships. After proceeding for some time on a Second Amended Complaint, the Williamses sought leave of court to amend the complaint to add Avery Development Company ("ADC") as a party. In August 2003, the Williamses were finally granted permission to file a Third Amended Complaint, adding ADC. In that Third Amended Complaint, the Williamses asserted against the new defendant claims for breach of contract (count I), unjust enrichment (count III), and conspiracy to defraud and fraudulently induce contractual relationships (count IV). As to the relationship between ADCBR and ADC, the Third Amended Complaint alleged the following: (1) ADCBR and ADC operated and held themselves out to the public under the name "Avery Development Corporation," an unregistered fictitious name; (2) ADCBR and ADC shared bank and credit card merchants' accounts; (3) ADCBR and ADC shared the same director/officer, address, attorney, registered agent, and phone number; (4) "ADC . . . has known of the claim throughout the litigation, and, as the entity that wrongfully detained the funds, its assets would be seized in proceedings supplementary if leave to amend were not sought"; and (5) ADC is ADCBR's "alter ego." Both ADCBR and ADC filed motions to dismiss.1 For its part, ADC asserted that the claims against it were barred by the relevant statutes of limitations, which ran on November 12, 2001, with respect to counts I and III and on November 12, 2000, with respect to count IV. Despite the Williamses' contention that the Third Amended Complaint related back to the filing of the original complaint, the trial court granted ADC's motion and entered judgment in its favor. The Williamses have appealed. We find that the relation back doctrine should have
1

CASE NO. 4D04-530

Opinion filed March 16, 2005 Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Jorge Labarga, Judge; L.T. Case No. 02-2474 AB. Jeffrey A. Norkin of Jeffrey A. Norkin, P.A., Plantation, for appellants. J. Andrew Fine, West Palm Beach, for appellee Avery Development Company. STEVENSON, J. The instant appeal arises from a final judgment dismissing from the lawsuit a newlyadded defendant, Avery Development Company, on the ground that the claims asserted by the plaintiffs/appellants were barred by the relevant statutes of limitation. Because we find merit in the plaintiffs' claim that the Third Amended Complaint related back to the filing date of the original complaint, we reverse. In April 1997, after their purchase of a home fell through, Larry and Sharon Williams sued Avery Development Company

Download 4D04-530.pdf