YAVOR EFREMOV,
v.
MOTORSPORT NETWORK, LLC, ETC.,
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.
A trial court properly grants summary judgment when contract terms are clear and unambiguous, and properly denies a late motion to amend to add mistake and reformation claims when such amendment would be untimely and futile.
[1] A trial court properly denies a motion to amend a complaint on the ground of futility when the proposed amendment seeks to add claims of mistake and reformation that woul…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Courts cannot disregard … agreed-upon, contractual provisions between parties. To do so would be to strike the … obligations from the contract by way of judicial fiat and the bargained-for contractual terms would be rendered surplusage.”
The court cited Shivdasani for the principle that courts must honor express contractual terms between parties.
Efremov sued Motorsport Network on matters governed by specific contract provisions. Shortly before the summary judgment hearing, Efremov sought to am…
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 Reformation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. We find no error in the trial court’s determination that the contract terms at issue warranted the granting of the Appellee’s motion for summary
judgment. Shivdasani v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 306 So. 3d 1156, 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“Courts cannot disregard … agreed-upon, contractual provisions between parties. To do so would be to strike the … obligations from the contract by way of judicial fiat and the bargained-for contractual terms would be rendered surplusage.”). In addition, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to amend its complaint. In the last weeks before the summary judgment hearing, Appellant sought to add counts maintaining that the contract provisions he had relied upon in the litigation up to that point in time did not reflect the parties’ intent and must be reformed on account of mutual or unilateral mistake.
The trial court properly found that the amendment would be both untimely and futile. Vella v. Salaues, 290 So. 3d 946, 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
Accordingly, we affirm the well-reasoned judgment of the trial court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fahed Fayad, M.D. v. Univ. of Miami, 307 So. 3d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…t this juncture, there is no indication that the amendment would have been futile. In finding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Dr. Fayad’s Motion to Amend Complaint, we have considered this Court’s decision in Vella v. Salaues, 290 So. 3d 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). Vella appealed the denial of his motion for leave to amend the complaint, in which he sought to add a new theory. Id. at 948. Finding no abuse of discretion because the prejudice to the defendants (the Salaueses) was evident,…
-
Bronstein v. Allstate Ins. Co., 315 So. 3d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)…tin Mem’l Hosp. Ass’n, Inc., 710 So. 2d 567, 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“The trial court properly exercised the discretion given to it in denying [plaintiff’s] motion for leave to amend at this juncture of the litigation.”); see also Vella v. Salaues, 290 So. 3d 946, 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (affirming denial of motion for leave to amend complaint where “following two years of contentious litigation, on the proverbial ‘eve’ of the summary judgment hearing, immediately preceding the scheduled trial date, [plaintif…
-
Celerina Nunez v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 325 So. 3d 267 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…“insured's refusal to comply with a demand for an examination under oath is a willful and material breach of an insurance contract which precludes the insured from recovery under the policy”); Shivdasani v. Universal Prop. & 14 Cas. Ins. Co., 306 So. 3d 1156, 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“It is unquestionable that in order for there to be substantial compliance, there must be evidence of some compliance.”); Edwards v. Safepoint Ins. Co., 318 So. 3d 13, 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (finding “total failure” to c…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Vella v. Salaues, 290 So. 3d 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)