R.R. v. New Life , 248 So. 3d 232 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •          IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
    FIFTH DISTRICT
    NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
    FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
    DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
    R.R. AND S.B.,
    Appellants,
    v.                                              Case No. 5D16-4148
    NEW LIFE COMMUNITY CHURCH OF CMA, INC.,
    PRISCILLA HEFFIELD, RON HEFFIELD,
    DANIEL HEFFIELD, CHRISTIAN AND MISSIONARY
    ALLIANCE, INC., ET AL.,
    Appellees.
    ____________________________________/
    Opinion filed May 18, 2018
    Appeal from the Circuit Court
    for Orange County,
    Donald A. Myers, Jr., Judge.
    Susan W. Fox, of Fox & Loquasto, P.A.,
    Orlando, Wendy S. Loquasto, of Fox &
    Loquasto, P.A., Tallahassee, Griffith J.
    Winthrop, III, of Alvarez, Winthrop,
    Thompson & Storey, P.A., Orlando, and
    John K. Overchuck, of Overchuck Law
    Firm, Orlando, for Appellants.
    David J. Pascuzzi and Steven G. Schwartz,
    of The Schwartz Law Group, Boca Raton,
    for Appellees, New Life Community Church
    of CMA, Inc. and Ron Heffield.
    Scott A. Cole and Melinda S. Thornton, of
    Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for
    Appellee, Priscilla Heffield.
    Michael R. D'Lugo, of Wicker, Smith,
    O'Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A., Orlando, for
    Appellee, The Christian and Missionary
    Alliance, Inc.
    Michael A. Sastre and Christian M. Leger,
    of GrayRobinson, P.A., Miami, for Appellee,
    The Southeastern District of the Christian
    and Missionary Alliance.
    No Appearance for other Appellees.
    PER CURIAM.
    R.R. and S.B. appeal the partial summary judgment on their negligence and
    respondeat superior claims against the parents and employer of the alleged abuser in this
    child sexual abuse case. We are compelled to affirm because the claims were time-
    barred by the four-year statute of limitations outlined in section 95.11(3)(a), (p), Florida
    Statutes (1996). In reaching this conclusion,1 we align ourselves with the Second District
    in D.H. ex rel. R.H. v. Adept Community Services, Inc., 
    217 So. 3d 1072
    , 1077-80 (Fla.
    2d DCA 2017), and certify conflict with Doe v. Nur-Ul-Islam Academy, Inc., 
    217 So. 3d 85
    , 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), and Drake ex rel. Fletcher v. Island Community Church, Inc.,
    
    462 So. 2d 1142
    , 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). We recognize that the Florida Supreme
    Court has accepted jurisdiction to review the conflict between the holding in D.H. and the
    holdings in Nur-Ul-Islam Academy and Drake. See D.H. v. Adept Cmty. Servs., Inc., No.
    SC17-829, 
    2017 WL 4325848
    , at *1 (Fla. Sept. 29, 2017).
    AFFIRMED and CONFLICT CERTIFIED.
    1 We note that even if we were to adopt Appellants' argument as to section
    95.051(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2011), Appellants' negligence and respondeat superior
    claims were filed beyond the seven-year repose period provided for in the statute.
    Likewise, their alternative argument, based on section 95.11(9), Florida Statutes (2010),
    fails because the subsection does not apply to actions that would have been time-barred
    on or before July 1, 2010.
    2
    TORPY, BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 5D16-4148

Citation Numbers: 248 So. 3d 232

Filed Date: 5/14/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/25/2018