Imagine winning a judgment against a defendant but the defendant’s name was incorrect. Instead
of suing “The Company Group, LLC” you have sued “The Company, LLC.” Is the judgment
entered invalid? Can it be amended? Is it still possible to collect the judgment against the correct
defendant?
What is a misnomer?
A misnomer is defined as the misdescription of a party in a lawsuit. Ferro v. ECI Telecom, Inc.,
314 So. 3d 711, 713 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (quoting G.B. Holdings, Inc. v. Steinhauser, 862 So. 2d
97, 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)). Misnomer’s can result from mere scrivener’s errors, which are
unintentional typos and misspellings. A misnomer can also arise when there are ambiguities in
identity of a party.
Can a misnomer be fixed?
When the misdescription is merely a misnomer or defect in the characterization of the party,
amendments are allowed to correct the error. Barone v. Scandinavian World Cruises (Bahamas),
Ltd., 531 So. 2d 1036, 1040 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
When is a Court likely to allow for a post-judgment amendment of a misnomer?
There are certain circumstances in which a Florida Court is more likely to find a misnomer and
allow for a post judgement amendment. These include:
- If the entity initially sued and the intended entity to be sued are related companies functioning through the same management structure. G.B. Holdings, 862 So. 2d at 99.
- When the intended defendant is improperly sued under its fictitious name and defends the suit in that fictitious name. Id.
- Clerical mistakes in judgments, decrees, or other parts of the record arising from oversight or omission can be corrected by the court at any time on its own initiative or upon the motion of any party, with proper notice. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(a).
- When the misdescribed defendant is known by the real defendant to be nonexistent, and the real defendant is thus incapable of being misled by the misdescription, amendments should be permitted. Barone, 531. So. 2d at 1040.
When there is a scrivener’s error in the legal description or name of company. See Baker
v. Courts at Bayshore Condominium Association, Inc., 279 So. 3d 799 (Fla. 3d DCA
2019).
