DOROTHY A. TALBERT, APPELLANT,
v.
DALE L. TALBERT, JR., 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 court held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the appellant's motion to amend her pleadings.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion to amend pleadings when the requested amendments are of significant importance to the parties and justice requires…
[2] The liberality in allowing amendments to pleadings generally diminishes as a case progresses toward trial.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant sought to amend her answer and file a counterclaim to seek a special equity in appellee's property, custody, child support, and alimony, eig…
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 Discretion Of The Court cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Chief Judge.
Appellant seeks reversal of an order of the trial court denying appellant’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
Suit was initially filed in May. Appellant filed an answer in June, generally denying the allegation of the complaint, and the cause was set for trial in August. Appellant obtained a continuance of that trial date until September. In August appellant obtained another continuance and the cause was reset for trial in October. Eight days before the case was due for trial appellant sought to amend her answer and file a counterclaim so as to plead a special equity in all of appellee’s property and to seek alimony and child support — none of which had been sought by her original pleadings. The trial court declined to allow the amend ment and appellant seeks review of that order. At first blush, it would seem the order appealed from is a routine exercise of the chancellor’s discretion. However, a closer examination of the record discloses that the two continuances were made necessary because appellee’s counsel was not available to attend the proceedings noticed. In addition, the relief sought through the proposed amended pleadings1 was of such importance to the wife and minor children that justice required the amendments be allowed.
We are fully aware of and agree with the rule which provides that liberality in allowing amendments diminishes as the case progresses. We are also most reluctant to reverse an exercise of discretion such as we have here. However, viewing this case in its totality, we feel the chancellor did abuse his discretion and accordingly we reverse the order appealed from and remand the cause with directions to allow the proposed amendments and for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED with directions.
ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur. . The amended pleadings for the first time sought a special equity in property titled in the husband’s name, custody of the minor children, child support and lump sum alimony.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McKENZIE v. McKENZIE, 648 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…PER CURIAM. Under the circumstances of this case, the lower court should have permitted appellant to amend her answer to request rehabilita [*327] tive alimony. Talbert v. Talbert, 364 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Chaachou v. Chaachou, 118 So. 2d 73, 76 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 122 So. 2d 408 (Fla.1960). REVERSED. HARRIS, C.J., and PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.…