HUGO ARMANDO AND AMALIA ARMANDO, APPELLANTS,
v.
MAURICIO RIZIKOW, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendants’ amended answer was mailed to the court at a time when no leave to amend was necessary. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.190(a). The trial court’s order setting the cause for trial, which under the cited rule triggered the necessity for leave to amend, was docketed on the next day but one day before the amended answer was docketed.1 When the case came up for hearing on the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the court decreed that it would not consider the amended answer because it was violative of Rule 1.190. This pronouncement had the effect of denying leave to amend and was, in our view, an abuse of discretion. See generally Reid v. Reid, 396 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA), pet. for review denied, 402 So. 2d 612 (Fla.1981); Alvarez v. DeAguirre, 395 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Singh v. Tolz, 380 So. 2d 1326 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Lewis v. Howanitz, 378 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. Therefore, the only reasonable inference is that the amended answer and the notice that trial had been set crossed in the mail.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Belcher Yacht, Inc. v. Stickney, 450 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 1984)…SHAW, Justice. Petitioners seek review of a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District. Stickney v. Belcher Yacht, Inc., 424 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The third district certified the appeal as passing on a question of great public importance. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution. The question certified is: WHETHER SECTION 767.04, F…
-
Andrews v. State, 438 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…applied to that type of case. Dobbert, 409 So. 2d at 1057. It is elementary in the law that a case is only authority for what it actually decides, and what may seem to flow logically from it is not binding precedent. Stickney v. Belcher Yacht, Inc., 424 So. 2d 962, 966 n. 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The Neil court recognizes that the issue it certifies to the supreme court is “particularly troublesome” but then thinks itself paralyzed by precedent. Indeed, that is not the case for the reasons already stated. To ca…
-
Bobbi Fusinski v. Walters, 429 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979); see Stickney v. Belcher Yacht, Inc., 424 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); compare Fusinski v. Robertson, 391 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), discussed in Stickney, 424 So. 2d at 967, n. 6.…
Authorities Cited
- Nazario Alvarez v. DeAGUIRRE, 395 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Lewis v. State, 396 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Nanak Singh v. Marika Tolz, 380 So. 2d 1326 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Lewis v. Purie Howanitz, 378 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)