Handley v. Anclote Manor Foundation
| Decision Date | 15 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 70--782,70--782 |
| Citation | 253 So.2d 501 |
| Parties | Leon H. HANDLEY, as Administrator of the Estate of Danna Post Wilkinson, (Deceased), and John Neal Wilkinson, III, as Guardian of the person and property of John Neal Wilkinson, IV, a minor, Appellants, v. ANCLOTE MANOR FOUNDATION, a Florida corporation, and Ronald M. Baccus, M.D., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John W. Boult and Edward M. Waller, Jr., of Fowler, White, Gillen, Humkey, Kinney & Boggs, Tampa, for appellants.
F. Ronald Fraley and John W. Puffer, III, of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, Tampa, for appellees.
This action was brought by the decedent's administrator to recover damages for her death. After the two-year period during which a new action might be filed, an amended complaint was filed joining the guardian of decedent's son as plaintiff and seeking recovery under the wrongful death statute. The precise question whether such an amendment relates back to the original filing seems never to have been raised in Florida, and the trial judge granted summary final judgment so that the question could be posed on appeal prior to trial.
'When the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment shall relate back to the date of the original pleading.' Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.190(c), 30 F.S.A. The Author's Comment at 30 F.S.A. p. 273 elaborates:
It seems clear to us upon consideration of the rule and cases decided in Florida and federal courts 1 that such an amendment as this should relate back to the date of original filing. This view is consistent with the general policy of the Rules. There has been no prejudice shown. The defendants knew upon the filing of the original complaint that there was a child who survived the decedent and who might plausibly claim under the wrongful death statute on the same allegations of fact. There is no surprise, and in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R.A. Jones & Sons, Inc. v. Holman
...e.g., Peters v. Mitchel, 423 So.2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Dye v. Houston, 421 So.2d 701 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Handley v. Anclote Manor Foundation, 253 So.2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971), cert. denied, 262 So.2d 445 (Fla.1972). But see School Board of Broward County v. Surette, 394 So.2d 147 (Fla.......
-
Palm Beach County v. Savage Const. Corp.
...rule is to be construed liberally. Schachner v. Sandler, 616 So.2d 166, 167-168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (citing Handley v. Anclote Manor Found., 253 So.2d 501, 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), cert. denied, 262 So.2d 445 (Fla.1972)). In the spirit of explaining the rule's liberality, the Florida Suprem......
-
Cunningham v. FLA. DEPT. OF CHILD. & FAM.
...claims for damages sustained by mother and estate damages not raised in the initial complaint); see also Handley v. Anclote Manor Foundation, 253 So.2d 501 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1971);1 see also Fla.R.Civ.P. The Florida Supreme Court, in Griffin, supra, noted that "[w]hether the substitution of a p......
-
Roden v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
...whether the relation back doctrine applies to a case is notice to the other party. For example, in Handley v. Anclote Manor Foundation, 253 So.2d 501, 502 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971), the Second District reviewed a trial court order dismissing an amended complaint which sought to add the guardian of......