Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Anthony v. Perez-Abreu & Martin-Lavielle, P.A.
Citations: 51 So. 3d 525; 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19106; 2010 WL 5093137Docket: No. 3D09-2637
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; December 14, 2010; Florida; State Appellate Court
Andrew J. Anthony's appeal challenges the trial court's dismissal of his complaint with prejudice, based solely on the claim that it was filed beyond the four-year statute of limitations. The court reversed this decision, determining that the complaint was timely filed. In 2004, Raquel Anthony, Andrew’s ex-wife, allegedly conspired with attorneys Javier Perez-Abreu and Andy Acosta to wrongfully obtain business records from Andrew’s law firm during their divorce proceedings. Although Raquel took the documents in March 2004, Andrew became aware of the theft during the divorce litigation, which was settled through mediation. PAML required Andrew to sign a release to settle, which he contested, leading to a court order in January 2006 for him to sign the release. However, he appealed, and the appellate court ruled that only Perez-Abreu in his individual capacity could be released, allowing Andrew to propose a new settlement agreement without releasing PAML. In December 2008, Andrew filed a civil conspiracy complaint against PAML and Acosta, claiming they orchestrated the wrongful acquisition of records. PAML moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired, citing March 2004 or September 2004 as the starting points for the statute. The trial court initially agreed but failed to recognize that a cause of action for civil conspiracy does not accrue until all elements, including damages, are satisfied. The court acknowledged that damages only materialized in 2005 when Andrew accepted the divorce settlement. Thus, the statute of limitations did not begin to run until that point, making the complaint timely. The trial court required Anthony to sign broad liability releases as part of his divorce settlement on January 30, 2006, which barred him from suing PAML. Anthony appealed this release and in January 2007, the court reversed the decision, allowing him to pursue claims against PAML and Acosta for civil conspiracy. His right to file suit was contingent on the appeal's conclusion in 2007, which ruled in his favor, making his 2008 complaint timely within the four-year statute of limitations for civil conspiracy. Consequently, the previous dismissal of his complaint with prejudice was reversed, and the case was remanded for reinstatement. A civil conspiracy requires an agreement between parties to commit an unlawful act, an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, and resulting damages to the plaintiff. The appeal focused solely on the statute of limitations, without addressing other procedural issues raised.