William Leonard Associates, Inc. v. Keshen

994 So. 2d 1120, 2007 WL 1610206
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 6, 2007
Docket3D07-631
StatusPublished

This text of 994 So. 2d 1120 (William Leonard Associates, Inc. v. Keshen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
William Leonard Associates, Inc. v. Keshen, 994 So. 2d 1120, 2007 WL 1610206 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

994 So.2d 1120 (2007)

WILLIAM LEONARD ASSOCIATES, INC., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Leonard Associates, Appellant,
v.
Deborah KESHEN and Cynthia Lawrence, Appellee.

No. 3D07-631.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 6, 2007.

Langbein & Langbein and Evan J. Langbein and Richard A. Friend and Richard F. O'Brien, III and Sands Moskowitz, Miami, for appellant.

Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod and Alvin D. Lodish and Raquel M. Fernandez and Melissa Pallett-Vasquez, Miami, for appellee.

Before FLETCHER, WELLS, and SUAREZ JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WELLS, J., specially concurring.

I agree that the summary judgment dismissing the instant action against Deborah Keshen and Cynthia Lawrence in their individual capacities should be affirmed. I write only to make clear that nothing in this determination should preclude William Leonard Associates from seeking to amend its complaint to properly reflect what the parties admit, which is that the properties at issue here were owned by a general partnership in which these two individuals, and their brother (who like these two parties was named individually and served with process), were general partners. See I. Epstein & Bro. v. First Nat. Bank of Tampa, 92 Fla. 796, 110 So. 354 (1926) (wherein the Florida Supreme Court opined that an amendment to the pleadings which changed the capacity of a defendant-partner from representative status to individual status is permitted even after the statute of limitations has run where the partners had, prior to expiration of the limitation period, been served with process and had appeared in court and filed pleadings).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

I. Epstein & Brother v. First National Bank
110 So. 354 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1926)
Sutton v. State
994 So. 2d 1120 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
994 So. 2d 1120, 2007 WL 1610206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-leonard-associates-inc-v-keshen-fladistctapp-2007.