KATHLEEN ROSS JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHELLE JOHNSON HEADLEY, ETC., APPELLEE; REGINALD HALL JOHNSON, III, AND KATHLEEN ROSS JOHNSON, APPELLANTS, V. MICHELLE JOHNSON HEADLEY, ETC., 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 reversed a summary judgment for partition because the trial court failed to address affirmative defenses and abused its discretion by denying without ruling on a motion to amend the answer.
Summary judgment for partition must be reversed where the movant fails to factually challenge affirmative defenses and the trial court abuses its discretion by implicitly denying a motion to amend without express ruling.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by implicitly denying a motion to amend pleadings by entering summary judgment without expressly ruling on the motion.
[2] Summary judgment cannot be granted when affirmative defenses are raised in pleadings unless the movant factually challenges them or demonstrates their legal insufficiency…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“It is clearly an abuse of discretion to refuse leave to amend except under very limited circumstances.”
The court cited Reid v. Reid to establish that denying a motion to amend without express ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion.
Appellants raised affirmative defenses in their pleadings and moved to amend their answer and affirmative defenses before the summary judgment hearing…
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 Motion To Amend Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The summary final judgment (order granting summary judgment for partition) appealed from must be reversed on several grounds. No attempt was made (at least none is evident in the record) to factually challenge affirmative defenses raised by appellants/defendants’ pleadings nor to show that they were somehow legally insufficient. Howdeshell v. First National Bank of Clearwater, 369 So. 2d 432 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). Where any doubt exists as to whether or not there is a genuine issue of material fact, the movant for summary judgment may not prevail. Snyder v. Cheezem Development Corp., 373 So. 2d 719 (Fla.2d DCA 1979).
In addition, appellants, through new counsel, moved to amend the answer and affirmative defenses in advance of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. The trial court, by entering the summary final judgment without ruling expressly on the motion to amend, in essence and in effect denied the motion. “It is clearly an abuse of discretion to refuse leave to amend except under very limited circumstances.” Reid v. Reid, 396 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). It was an abuse of discretion here.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions that appellants be granted leave to amend the responsive pleading and for further appropriate proceedings.
ANSTEAD, HERSEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cufferi v. Royal Palm Dev. Co., Inc., 516 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…onclusion that these were not illusory or mere paper issues. A summary judgment should not be granted where there are issues of fact raised by affirmative defense which have not been effectively factually challenged and refuted. Johnson v. Headley, 419 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Bunner v, Florida Coast Bank of Coral Springs, N.A., 390 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). In Bunner, this court said: In order for a plaintiff ... to obtain a summary judgment when the defendant asserts affirmative defenses, the…
-
Vada L. Conger & V.L.C. Corp. v. Szeman, Inc., 549 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…the trial court from entering the summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff/appellee. Broz v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 512 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Monroe County v. New Port Largo, Inc., 441 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Johnson v. Headley, 419 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Also, and in consideration of the foregoing, it appears that the trial court’s striking of the appellant/defendant’s demand for jury trial was premature. Accordingly, the Final Summary Judgment entered herein is reversed, an…
-
Mut. OF Omaha INS. Co. v. Gold, 795 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…leave to amend should be freely given when justice so requires. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(a); Craig v. East Pasco Medical Center, Inc., 650 So. 2d 179, 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Failure to do so constitutes an abuse of discretion. See, Johnson v. Headley, 419 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)(abuse of discretion to deny motion to amend affirmative defense where motion made in advance of hearing on summary judgment motion). For these reasons, we reverse the summary judgments and remand to the trial court for further p…
Authorities Cited
- Watkins DRY Wall, Inc. v. Drummond Court Corp., 373 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Snyder v. Cheezem Dev. Corp., 373 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- State v. Boyd, 369 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Lewis v. State, 396 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)