IMPERIAL BONITA ESTATES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
HENRY MINSTER, TRUSTEE, APPELLEE
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.
The trial court erred in denying the motion for leave to amend the answer, as amendments should be liberally allowed in furtherance of justice when no prejudice is shown.
Appellant/defendant filed an interlocutory appeal from an order denying its motion for leave to amend its answer. Appellee/plaintiff had filed a compl…
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 Leave To Amend Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Judge.
Appellant/defendant files this timely interlocutory appeal from an order of the trial court denying a motion for leave to amend its answer. Appellee filed his complaint seeking a right of way across the lands of appellant pursuant to the applicable Florida Statutes.
The appellee/plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the allowance of the requested amendment to appellant’s pleading would be prejudicial or harmful to his cause of action.
Upon first reading of the pertinent pleading, we thought perhaps the issue presented was a close one. Further review thereof clearly indicates that the well-established rule of permitting and allowing liberality in pleading should be applied in this case. Rule 1.190(e), RCP, 30 F.S.A., states:
. At any time in furtherance of justice, upon such terms as may be just, the court may permit any process, proceeding, pleading or record to be amended or material supplemental matter to be set forth in an amended or supplemental pleading. At every stage of the action the court must disregard any error or defect in the proceedings which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.
On authority of the Rule, supra, and the law pronounced by the Supreme Court of Florida in the case of Town of Coreytown v. State ex rel. Ervin, Fla.1952, 60 So. 2d 482, and by our sister court in Free Bond, Inc. v. Comaza International, Inc., Fla.App.1973, 281 So. 2d 61, we are of the view that the trial court erred in not allowing appellant to amend its answer. Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure.
MANN, C. J., and COWART, JOE A., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ramos v. Mast, 789 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…d his [*1228] complaint. Leave to amend should not be denied unless the privilege to amend has been abused or the complaint is clearly not amendable. See Soucy v. Casper, 658 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Imperial Bonita Estates, Inc. v. Minster, 283 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). Here, the court made no finding that the privilege was abused or that appellee would be prejudiced by the amendment. REVERSED. POLEN C.J., STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
-
ST. Petersburg Auto. Museum, Inc. v. Thompson, 561 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…motion for judgment on the pleadings and permitting Lewis, Kjeer and SPAM to file an amended answer, whatever affirmative defenses were available to them and to continue to participate in the litigation. See Imperial Bonita Estates, Inc. v. Minster, 283 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). Accordingly, we reverse, vacate the trial court’s order granting the appellees’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. CA…
Authorities Cited
- Town of Coreytown v. State Ex Rel. Ervin, 60 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1952)
- Free Bond, Inc. v. Comaza Int'l, Inc., 281 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)