Background
Martinez and Merino held unsatisfied judgments against A Class Limos, LLC and Edward Boginsky totaling approximately $103,669. In June 2021, they filed a motion to commence proceedings supplementary to identify and recover assets fraudulently transferred by the judgment debtors. The trial court granted the motion in August 2021, requiring the appellees to respond within 20 days. In March 2022, the creditors served a Statement of Particulars detailing alleged fraudulent transfers: payments by A Class Limos totaling $145,079.18 to JP Morgan Chase on a mortgage debt, and transfers of four vehicles to Price for Limo valued at $125,000.
More than two years later, in August 2024, Martinez and Merino filed supplemental complaints under Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (Chapter 726) asserting claims that the transfers were avoidable under sections 726.105 and 726.106. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the supplemental complaints were time-barred under section 726.110’s statute of limitations. The trial court granted the motions, finding the complaints did not relate back to any prior pleading and were therefore untimely.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth DCA reversed, holding that the supplemental complaints related back to the June 2021 motion to commence proceedings supplementary. The court applied the relation back doctrine under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(c), which permits amendments to relate back to the original pleading when claims “arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading.” The supplemental complaints alleged the same fraudulent transfers identified in the Statement of Particulars, which clarified the initial motion.
Critically, the court held that a motion to commence proceedings supplementary constitutes a “pleading” or functional equivalent of a pleading in the context of the special statutory proceeding under section 56.29. Because proceedings supplementary are governed by statute rather than the standard civil procedure rules, the motion functioned as the operative pleading commencing the action. The supplemental complaints asserted the same conduct and therefore related back to June 17, 2021, when the motion was filed. The court thus reversed the dismissals and remanded for proceedings on the merits.
Key Takeaways
- Supplemental complaints in proceedings supplementary alleging fraudulent transfers can relate back to the initial motion to commence, preventing dismissal as time-barred if filed within a reasonable time after service of particulars.
- A motion to commence proceedings supplementary functions as a pleading for relation back purposes in special statutory proceedings, distinguishing it from motions in ordinary civil actions.
- Judgment creditors need not file detailed fraud allegations in the initial motion; subsequent supplemental complaints relating to the same conduct and transaction will relate back, giving creditors time to investigate before filing detailed claims.
- The statute of limitations for fraudulent transfer claims in proceedings supplementary runs from the date of the initial motion, not the supplemental complaint.
Why It Matters
This decision provides critical guidance for judgment creditors pursuing fraudulent transfer claims through proceedings supplementary. By holding that supplemental complaints relate back to the initial motion, the court allows creditors to commence proceedings quickly and then conduct investigation before filing detailed allegations. This is especially important because statutes of limitations for fraudulent transfer claims are relatively short—four years from the transfer or one year from discovery under section 726.110. The ruling clarifies that creditors who file a timely motion to commence need not rush to file comprehensive fraud allegations, provided they later file supplemental complaints relating to the same conduct identified in the initial filings.
The decision also resolves a split of authority, distinguishing the Fourth DCA’s earlier holding in McGregor v. Fowler White Burnett, PA, which had suggested strict time-bar limitations. The court noted that McGregor involved proceedings commenced a decade after transfers; here, the motion was filed well within the limitations period, supporting relation back. The case provides a roadmap for practitioners in Florida seeking to recover fraudulently transferred assets while navigating complex statutory schemes governing collection proceedings.