believe they had sued the correct party. The mistake here amounts to nothing more than a misnomer and it would be “manifestly unjust” to apply the statute of limitations as a bar to the amended complaint under the facts of this case. See B & H Sales, Inc., 342 So.2d at 107. Further, because it was clear from the Mays’ complaint that the subject was the alleged negligence of the Medical Center, and because the Medical Center, through its counsel “ ‘knew or should have known that the [Mays] had made a mistake or [were] guilty of a misnomer’ ” in identifying the correct defendant, the Medical Center would not be prejudiced by the amendment. Arnwine, 818 So.2d at 624 (quoting Kozich, 702 So.2d at 1291); see also St. John’s Hosp. & Health Ctr. v. Toomey, 610 So.2d 62, 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (<HOLDING>). Finally, unlike the trial court, we do not
holding that defendant estate was not prejudiced by amendment of complaint to correct misnomer in name between hospital and its similarly named fundraising foundation where the complaints were identical except for correction of the name and clearly indicated the subject matter of the suit and where estate had actual knowledge that foundation was the intended plaintiff holding that the decedents estate had standing because the traditional requirement that the plaintiff show an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the conduct of the defendant is met by the allegation in the complaint that the defendants actions resulted in the diminishment of the assets of the estate holding that a legal malpractice claim arising from errors by an attorney in rendering estateplanning services is properly brought by the personal representative of the estate when excess estate taxes are paid by the estate in contravention of the decedents intended estate plan holding that an action brought in the name of a person adjudicated as incapacitated instead of in the name of her guardian cannot be corrected as a misnomer holding that failure of indictment to include the defendants name was not fatal because the original complaint that initiated the prosecution properly listed the defendants name and the record indieated that the defendant  knew what he was charged with and what facts the charge was based upon