DELMARIE DONALD v. MRYLENE BARRERA

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: October 25, 2023
• Docket: 2023-0683
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed October 25, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0683 Lower Tribunal No. 20-27980 ________________

Delmarie Donald, Appellant,

vs.

Mrylene Barrera, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose M. Rodriguez, Judge.

Delmarie Donald, in proper person.

Marcus Law Center, LLC, and Nicholas M. Vicente and Alexandra D. Salvador, for appellees.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and SCALES and HENDON, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Appellant Delmarie Donald (“Donald”) challenges a final summary

judgment adjudicating her claims – sounding in fraud and negligence – that

appellee Myrlene Barrera (“Barrera”), the principal of three corporations,1

misled Donald into working for these corporations with false promises of

company ownership. On March 3, 2023, the trial court conducted a hearing

on Barrera and the corporations’ summary judgment motion. 2 On March 13,

2023, the trial court entered a detailed, eleven-page summary judgment

order, concluding, inter alia, that all of Donald’s claims are barred by the

applicable four-year statutes of limitation.

We review de novo a trial court’s order granting final summary

judgment. See Ibarra v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc., 350 So. 3d 465, 467 (Fla.

3d DCA 2022). Upon our review of the record, we agree with the trial court

that, even if Barrera had fraudulently induced Donald to work for the

corporations based on false promises of an ownership interest in them, any

such claims accrued upon Donald being made aware that she held no

ownership interest in any of the three corporations.3 See § 95.031(2)(a), Fla.

1 The corporations, co-appellees of Barrera in this appeal, are Synergy Dialysis, Inc., N’Sync Consulting Corp., and Synergy Dialysis of Pembroke Pines, LLC. 2 We have not been provided a transcript of this hearing. 3 We express no opinion as to the merits of Donald’s claims.

2 Stat. (2020) (“An action founded upon fraud . . . must be begun within the

period prescribed in this chapter, with the period running from the time the

facts giving rise to the cause of action were discovered or should have been

discovered with the exercise of due diligence . . . .”).

Because the summary judgment evidence establishes that Donald was

aware she held no ownership interest in the corporations earlier than four

years from the December 31, 2020 filing of Donald’s lawsuit, her claims are

barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. See §§ 95.031(2)(a),

95.11(3)(j), Fla. Stat. (2020) (fraud); § 95.11(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2020)

(negligence).

Affirmed.