MARCOS GUZMAN
v.
ALEXANDER FREMONTSMITH
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A trial court errs in dismissing a complaint under an earlier version of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j) when the amended version of the rule applies.
[1] When an earlier version of a civil procedure rule differs materially from an amended version, a trial court's reliance on case law interpreting the earlier version consti…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGuzman filed a complaint against Fremontsmith, but the trial court dismissed it for failure to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j) af…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
MARCOS GUZMAN, Appellant,
v.
ALEXANDER FREMONTSMITH, Appellee.
No. 4D2024-0987
[December 17, 2025]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Brett
M.
Waronicki, Judge;
L.T.
Case No. 562023CA000377AXXXHC.
Ian Bressler of Ian Bressler Law P.A., Lake Worth, and Andrew A. Harris and Grace Mackey Streicher of Harris Appeals, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for appellant.
Jack R. Reiter and Sydney Feldman D’Angelo of GrayRobinson, P.A., Miami, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant timely appeals the dismissal of his complaint for failure to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j). Because the limitations period had run before appellant had filed his complaint, the trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On appeal, Appellant argues, among other things, that the trial court erred in its dismissal order by relying upon Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 601 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1992).
Appellant is correct. Morales involved an earlier version of rule 1.070(j), which differs materially from the amended version of rule 1.070(j) that was applicable in this case. Accordingly, we reverse the order of dismissal and remand the case to the trial court with instructions to analyze the motion to dismiss under rule 1.070(j)’s amended version. See Foster v. Chung, 738 So. 2d 350, 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (remanding “for a determination of whether [the trial court] would grant [the plaintiff] an extension to serve [the defendant] or dismiss the action in light of rule 1.070(j) as amended”).
2
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
CIKLIN, LEVINE and SHAW, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 601 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1992)
- Foster v. Chung, 738 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)