MARATHON LODGE NO 1058 LOYAL ORDER OF MOOSE, INC.
v.
BOHUSLAVA PERSL
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.
Marathon Lodge appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to amend its complaint shortly before trial and challenges an award of attorneys' fees to the defendant. The appellate court affirmed both orders, finding no abuse of discretion in the amendment denial and no reversible error in the fee award.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the amendment motion, and the court found no reversible error in the attorneys' fees award in the absence of a hearing transcript for appellate review.
“This Court reviews the denial of a motion for leave to amend a pleading for abuse of discretion.”
Establishes the standard of review for amendment denials
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarathon Lodge sought to file an amended complaint approximately one week before the scheduled trial date. The defendant Bohuslava Persl moved for att…
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.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, Marathon Lodge No 1058 Loyal Order of Moose, Inc., appellant and plaintiff below, challenges the final judgment of the trial court, claiming that the trial court erred by denying its motion for leave to file an amended complaint that it sought to file a little over a week before trial (3D22-1695); and challenges a final judgment awarding Bohuslava Persl, appellee and defendant below, attorneys’ fees pursuant to a proposal for settlement (3D23-0841). We affirm both orders.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint. Toscano Condo. Ass’n v. DDA Eng’rs, P.A., 274 So. 3d 487, 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“This Court reviews the denial of a motion for leave to amend a pleading for abuse of discretion.”). In Toscano, as here, this Court affirmed the denial of a motion for leave to amend the complaint that the plaintiff had made close to the scheduled date of trial, and recognized the general rule that a liberal granting of amendment decreases as a case progresses to trial. Id.
Without a transcript of the March 27, 2023 evidentiary hearing that the trial court conducted on Persl’s fee motion, we are unable to discern any reversible error in the amounts awarded by the trial court in its final judgment on attorneys’ fees and costs. Thomas v. Perkins, 723 So. 2d 293, 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. Juanza Perkins and John R. Perkins, 723 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Toscano Condo Assoc. v. Dda Eng'rs, 274 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)