GEORGE R. ALBRECHT AND C.G. SCHINDLER, JR., APPELLANTS,
v.
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this inverse condemnation case, appellants sought compensation for alleged taking of submerged lands. The trial court granted appellees' motion for involuntary dismissal at a pretrial conference, but the appellate court reversed, finding the dismissal procedurally improper and requiring the trial court to give appellants an opportunity to amend their complaint.
The court reversed the dismissal order, finding that while the involuntary dismissal may have been procedurally improper, appellants should be given an opportunity to amend their complaint before any dismissal with prejudice is entered. The court held that a trial court must generally allow a litigant the opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissing with prejudice unless it is clear the pleading cannot be amended to state a cause of action.
[1] A trial court generally must allow a litigant the opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissing a suit with prejudice, unless it is clear the pleading cannot be amen…
[2] A trial court's dismissal of a complaint with prejudice may be harmless error if summary judgment could have been properly entered at that time.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Generally, a trial court must allow a litigant the opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissing its suit with prejudice unless it is clear that the pleading cannot be amended so as to state a cause of action.”
Establishes the governing legal standard for dismissals with prejudice and the right to amend complaints
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants filed an inverse condemnation action against appellees (the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund) and the Department of…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Opportunity To Amend Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
This appeal arises out of appellants’ inverse condemnation action against appel-lees and the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). Appellants’ suit seeks compensation based on allegations that the actions of appellees and DER resulted in a taking of submerged lands which appellants’ predecessor in title purchased from appellees.
During the pleadings stage of the suit, appellees moved to dismiss the action against them but the court denied the motion. Later, at a pretrial conference, appel-lees again moved for involuntary dismissal of the action against them. The judge granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice as to appellees.
On appeal, appellees concede that it may have been proeedurally improper for the court to have granted the involuntary dismissal before the appellants had completed the presentation of their case. In Re Estate of McCoy, 445 So. 2d 680 (Fla.2d DCA 1984). Yet, appellees contend that any error was harmless because the trial judge could have entered summary judgment at that time.
Moreover, appellees point to the appellants’ failure to have proffered any amendment to their complaint at the pretrial conference. The appellants respond that their failure to offer an amendment was justified because they were not on notice that the judge might grant a motion to dismiss at that time. We think appellants’ contention is reasonable, especially in view of the court’s previous denial of appellees’ motion to dismiss.
Generally, a trial court must allow a litigant the opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissing its suit with prejudice unless it is clear that the pleading cannot be amended so as to state a cause of action. Delia & Wilson, Inc. v. Wilson, 448 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). At oral argument appellants contended that if afforded the opportunity they could amend their complaint to state a cause of action against appellees. We express no view as to appellants’ ability to do so; nevertheless, under the circumstances, we think they should be given that opportunity.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order dismissing the action against appel-lees and remand with the direction that appellants be permitted to file an amended complaint.
RYDER, C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fuller Crews, Sr. v. Ellis, 531 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…a litigant the opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissing its suit with prejudice unless it is clear that the pleading cannot be amended so as to state a cause of action.” Albrecht v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 481 So. 2d 555, 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Thus, where a petitioner may have been able to allege further facts stating a cause of action, it is error to dismiss a petition with prejudice. Cutler v. City of Jacksonville Beach, 489 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In t…
-
Hamide v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 548 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…o. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Town of Micanopy v. Connell, 304 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Countryside Christian Center, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, 542 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Albrecht v. Board of Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund, 481 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Dingess v. Florida Aircraft Sales & Leasing, Inc., [*879] 442 So. 2d 431, 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Reid v. Reid, 396 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 402 So. 2d 612 (Fla.1981). DOC's reliance on Levine v. Dade County Sc…
-
Chimera Servs., Inc. v. Prevatt, 267 So. 3d 556 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Tr. Agreement of Jane Greer Kelly, 448 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Harris v. Zeesman, 445 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)