
    Joseph M. HENRION and Lois L. Henrion, his wife, and A.W. Nordman and J.M. Henrion, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. Roger H. SHOOK, Mark J. Greenway, Jim Graham, New Era Realty IV, Inc., a Florida corporation and Jim Graham, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.
    No. 85-865.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    June 11, 1986.
    Rehearing Denied July 2, 1986.
    
      Charles W. Musgrove and Phillip T. Crenshaw, West Palm Beach, for appellants.
    Allen R. Seaman of Weathers & Seaman, Lantana, for appellee — New Era Realty.
    Anne M. Desormier and Mikel D. Greene of DeSantis, Cook, Gaskill & Silverman, P.A., North Palm Beach, for appellees— Jim Graham, and Jim Graham, Inc.
   LETTS, Judge.

In this case, the trial court dismissed an amended complaint holding that the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations. We reverse.

The appellee’s position is that the third amended complaint was more than a mere substitution of parties and that new issues of both liability and damages were raised. We disagree.

The general rule is that whether an amendment, which makes changes in parties to the suit, relates back to the bringing of the suit for determining the application of the statute of limitations depends on the nature of the matter asserted by the amendment. An amendment which does not substantially change a cause of action may be made even after the statute of limitations has run. See Lindy's of Orlando, Inc. v. United Electric Company, 239 So.2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); and Galuppi v. Viele, 232 So.2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), cert. denied 238 So.2d 109 (Fla.1970).

Without protracted discussion, it is our view that the amendment before us now essentially pled the same cause of action. Therefore, the amendment should have been allowed and the statute of limitations did not bar the amendment.

REVERSED AND REMANDED IN ACCORDANCE HEREWITH.

HERSEY, C.J., and WALDEN, J., concur.  