DEENA STEPHEN DURRANCE, APPELLANT,
v.
LILA L. THOMPSON, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1986-04-17
No. 85-913
COBB, C.J., and SHARP, J., concur.
486 So. 2d 711 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1986)

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.

Synopsis

The court reversed a judgment on the pleadings entered against a defendant based on admitted requests for admissions, finding that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow the defendant to file late answers after she changed lawyers and was unrepresented during most of the response period.


Holding

The trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow late answers because withdrawal of technical admissions would facilitate presentation of the case on its merits, no prejudice is demonstrated to the plaintiff, and the defendant's lack of representation during the response period provides good cause for the delay.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by entering a judgment on the pleadings based on technical admissions when it refuses to allow a defendant to file late answers to req…

[2] A trial court should allow a defendant to file late answers to requests for admissions when the defendant was unrepresented for a significant portion of the response peri…

Previewing 2 of 5 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

Key Quotes

“Without question, the withdrawal of the technical admissions would serve to facilitate the presentation of the case on its evidentiary merits.”

Establishes the primary rationale for allowing late answers - that resolving the case on the merits serves judicial efficiency.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff filed requests for admissions approximately three weeks before trial. Defendant announced she was changing lawyers and her previous counsel …

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.


Opinion of the Court
ORFINGER, Judge.

ORFINGER, Judge.

We reverse the judgment on the pleadings which decided the issue of liability in favor of the plaintiff because we have determined from the record that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow the defendant to file late answers to plaintiff's requests for admissions, on which admissions the judgment was entered.

Plaintiff filed the request approximately three weeks prior to the date on which the case was set for trial. Defendant had announced to the court and opposing counsel that she was changing lawyers, and her lawyer was permitted to withdraw. For a good part of the 30 days in which she should have responded to the request, defendant was unrepresented. Without question, the withdrawal of the technical admissions would serve to facilitate the presentation of the case on its evidentiary merits. Melody Tours, Inc. v. Granville Market Letter, Inc., 413 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). No prejudice is demonstrated by the appellee if the admissions are withdrawn. See Curry Ford Apartments, Inc. v. Blackton, Inc., 249 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.370(b). Having to prepare for a trial on the merits is not the type of prejudice which the plaintiff can raise to combat the defendant’s motion for leave to file late answers because preparing for a trial on the merits was plaintiffs burden from the beginning. Neither can plaintiff argue that it had released witnesses from subpoena without a showing that these witnesses are material and are no longer available. The trial court has discretion to impose on the appellant the costs of issuing new subpoenas as a condition to permitting the late answers. Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.370(a).

REVERSED.

COBB, C.J., and SHARP, J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw