TORTS: VIOLATION OF FLORIDA CONTRABAND FORFEITURE ACT: FRAUD: COMPLAINT STATED CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD BY ALLEGING THAT DEPUTY SHERIFF INSTRUCTED PLAINTIFF AND HIS MOTHER TO EXECUTE QUITCLAIM DEED TO THEIR HOME BECAUSE IT WAS BEING SEIZED AND WAS SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE, ALTHOUGH NO FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS WERE EVER INSTITUTED; CIVIL PROCEDURE: STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FRAUD BEGINS TO RUN WHEN THE PLAINTIFF KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE FRAUD: PLAINTIFFS HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING AT THE TIME THAT THE DEPUTY’S REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE IMMINENT SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE OF THEIR HOME WERE UNTRUE: RELATION BACK: ADDITION OF MOTHER AS PLAINTIFF RELATED BACK TO FILING OF ORIGINAL COMPLAINT BECAUSE SHE AND HER SON HAD OVERLAPPING INTERESTS IN THE PROPERTY QUITCLAIMED TO THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT: DOCTRINE OF RELATION BACK SHOULD BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED AND APPLIED

Smith v. Bruster, ___ So. 3d ___, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D2244 (Fla. 1st DCA October 29, 2014)

The plaintiff sued a deputy sheriff for violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act based upon the deputy’s instructions to the plaintiff and his mother to execute quitclaim deeds on their home because it was being seized by the sheriff’s department … Click To Read Full Case Law Review...