## Facts

- Fred Ionata bought several parcels of land from Robert and Rosemary Allie; Robert Allie also served as Ionata’s accountant and financial adviser and recommended the purchases as tax shelters.
- Ionata later learned (after consulting another accountant) that the parcels were allegedly sold at severely inflated prices.
- Ionata stopped making payments and sued for rescission and restitution, alleging fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.
- Allie asserted the statute of limitations as a defense to rescission and counterclaimed for the unpaid balances due on two parcels (Parcels 1 and 2).
- In the first trial, the jury found no actual fraud but found a breach of fiduciary duty; the trial court entered judgment for Ionata and denied Allie’s counterclaim.
- On the first appeal, the appellate court held the rescission claim for Parcels 1 and 2 was time-barred and remanded for judgment for Allie as to those parcels.
- After remand, Allie pursued his counterclaim for unpaid balances; Ionata asserted breach of fiduciary duty as recoupment and sought restitution/rescission as defensive relief.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Ionata on recoupment and awarded affirmative relief; on the second appeal, the appellate court limited Ionata’s recovery in recoupment to the amount of Allie’s claim and certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether expiration of the statute of limitations on an independent cause of action bars a defendant from obtaining an affirmative judgment in recoupment on a compulsory counterclaim arising from the same transaction.
2. If recoupment survives the limitations bar, whether recovery in recoupment may exceed the amount sought by the opposing party on the claim being recouped against.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative.
- The Court approved the appellate decision limiting recoupment to the amount claimed by Allie.
- Ionata could assert recoupment arising from the same transactions despite the time bar that would have defeated an independent rescission action.
- Any affirmative award in recoupment could not exceed the amount of Allie’s claim.

## Legal Principles

- Recoupment is a defensive doctrine tied to the same transaction as the opposing party’s claim and may be asserted even when the underlying claim would be time-barred if brought independently.
- A time-bar does not prevent a defendant from asserting a compulsory counterclaim in recoupment to reduce or defeat the plaintiff’s claim.
- Recoupment may support an affirmative judgment only up to the amount of the opposing party’s claim; statutes of limitation continue to bar any net recovery beyond that amount.

## Conclusion

Florida permits a defendant to seek recoupment on a compulsory, same-transaction claim even if the claim would be time-barred as an independent action, but recovery is capped at the amount necessary to offset the opposing party’s demand.


Allie v. Ionata, 503 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1987)