Lindahl v. Laralen Corp.
1995 WL 608508, 661 So. 2d 412, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10935 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.170(h), a new party may be joined to a cross-claim against a co-party only if that new party's presence is required to grant complete relief in the determination of that specific cross-claim. A party cannot use a cross-claim as a vehicle to add a new party to the litigation on a separate and unrelated claim.
Facts:
- Lennart E. Lindahl, Jan Browning, and Kenneth Ferrari owned Laralen Corporation, which was developing real estate lots in a community called Manatee Creek.
- On February 28, 1988, Nicholas Raich, Sr. entered into an agreement to purchase all of Lindahl, Browning, and Ferrari's interest in Laralen Corporation.
- After the purchase, Raich became concerned about potential lawsuits from homeowners regarding unbuilt amenities, such as a swimming pool and clubhouse, that Laralen Corporation had represented would be built.
- On May 5, 1988, Raich entered into a 'Letter of Understanding' with Lindahl, Browning, and Ferrari.
- This letter provided that Raich would be responsible for half the cost of building the remaining recreation facilities ($40,230 total), and Lindahl, Browning, and Ferrari would be responsible for the other half.
- Subsequently, homeowners in the Manatee Creek development sued Laralen Corporation and Raich for, among other things, fraud related to the failure to construct the promised recreation facilities.
Procedural Posture:
- Homeowners sued Laralen Corporation, Nicholas Raich, and others in a Florida trial court for fraud and other claims.
- Laralen and Raich filed a 'Third Party Complaint' against Lindahl, which the trial court dismissed with leave to amend.
- Laralen and Raich then filed a 'First Amended Cross-complaint' against Lindahl, Browning, and Ferrari, which the trial court also dismissed, granting leave to file a proper cross-claim if they could show the new parties were necessary to a claim against an existing defendant.
- Laralen and Raich then filed a cross-claim against their co-defendant, Bannock Shoals, Inc., and included claims against Lindahl, Browning, and Ferrari in the same pleading.
- Lindahl, Browning, and Ferrari moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, but the trial court denied their motion.
- Following the trial court's denial, a final judgment was entered in favor of Laralen and Raich.
- Lindahl, Browning, and Ferrari (appellants) appealed that final judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.170 permit a defendant to join a non-party to a cross-claim against an existing co-defendant when the claim against the non-party is factually independent and not necessary for the resolution of the claim against the co-defendant?
Opinions:
Majority - Polen, J.
No. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.170 does not permit joining a non-party to a cross-claim unless that party is necessary for the resolution of the claim against the existing co-defendant. The court reasoned that a pleading's title as a 'cross-claim' does not make it a proper one. Rule 1.170(h) only allows for the joinder of additional parties when their presence is 'required to grant complete relief' on the cross-claim against a co-party. In this case, the breach of contract claim against Lindahl, Browning, and Ferrari (the appellants) based on the 'Letter of Understanding' was completely separate and independent from the indemnification claim against the co-defendant, Bannock Shoals, Inc. The appellants were not necessary to resolve the claim against Bannock Shoals, a fact underscored by the pre-trial settlement of that claim without their involvement. Therefore, the attempt to join them was an improper 'artifice' that lacked jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the procedural limits of joinder under Florida's cross-claim rules, specifically Rule 1.170(h). It prevents parties from using a cross-claim against a co-defendant as a procedural 'backdoor' to bring unrelated claims against non-parties into an existing lawsuit. The ruling reinforces the principle that joinder must be based on necessity for resolving the existing claim, not mere convenience for the litigant. This precedent helps maintain orderly litigation by preventing the commingling of distinct legal disputes that could lead to party prejudice and jury confusion.
