DON SUNTAN CORPORATION, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
TANNING RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC., 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 held that the trial court properly denied a post-appeal motion to amend the complaint because the prior appellate decision did not authorize such amendments.
[1] Once an appeal has been taken, the appellate decision becomes the law of the case, and amendments to pleadings on remand cannot present new issues unless authorized by th…
[2] A trial court properly denies a post-appeal motion to amend pleadings to assert new issues when the appellate court's prior decision did not authorize such amendments.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing an appellate decision construing an agreement, the defendant moved to amend its complaint to assert new counts based on a new position. The …
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 Breach Of Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
[*36] PER CURIAM.
In Tanning Research Laboratories, Inc. v. Don Suntan Corp., 482 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 491 So. 2d 278 (1986), this court construed an agreement between the parties and reversed a judgment in favor of Don Suntan that was based on a different construction of the agreement. After our decision, on remand, Don Suntan moved to amend its complaint to assert new counts based on a new position to recover damages for breach of the agreement as construed by this court. Appellant appeals the trial court’s denial of this post appeal motion to amend. We affirm.
In order to prevent later events in the trial court from circumventing or “mooting” the binding aspect of an appellate adjudication, the general rule is that once an appeal has been taken, the decision on appeal becomes “the law of the case,” and, on remand, amendments to the pleadings cannot be made to present new and different issues of fact or law unless the appellate court in its opinion has authorized such amendments.1 Our prior decision did not authorize any amendments to the complaint on remand. Therefore Don Suntan’s motion to amend was properly denied by the trial court.
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER, SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur. . See e.g. Coudry v. City of Titusville, 438 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Grady v. Grady, 395 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 402 So. 2d 610 (Fla.1981); Florida Air Conditioners, Inc. v. Colonial Supply Co., 390 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). In rare instances, appellate courts authorize amendments on remand which are perceived to be necessary in the interests of justice and which will not circumvent the appellate decision. Such amendments, when permitted, should not permit circumvention of the appellate decision or prior valid adjudication in the trial court, should not be inconsistent or repugnant to the allegations in the original pleadings, should not change or abandon the nature of the issues framed by the pleadings, and should not introduce a new theory of recovery or defense not theretofore asserted. Florida Air Conditioners, Inc., supra.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arky v. Bowmar Instrument Corp., 527 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…awyers Title Insurance Corp., 508 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Coudry v. City of Titusville, 438 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Grady v. Grady, 395 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). See also Don Suntan Corp. v. Tanning Research Laboratories, Inc., 505 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Cf. Somatra Lines, Ltd. v. Rayne International, Inc., 419 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Ginsberg v. Goldstein, 404 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). As we will discuss in detail later in this opinion, the practice seems to us to…
-
Phrazer Co., Inc. v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., 508 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…be permitted, within a reasonable time, to amend its complaint to assert such claim against appellee for the alleged breach of its duty as closing agent as appellant may be advised. See, Don Suntan Corporation v. Tanning Research Laboratories, Inc., 505 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Coudry v. City of Titusville, 438 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Florida Air Conditioners, Inc. v. Colonial Supply Co., 390 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). AFFIRMED and REMANDED. UPCHURCH, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.…
-
Wells Fargo Armored Servs. Corp. v. Sunshine Sec. & Detective Agency, Inc., 538 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ening the case and filing an amended complaint upon remand containing the same causes of action ruled upon in the prior appeal and adding new, different theories of recovery not previously asserted. Don Suntan Corp. v. Tanning Research Laboratories, 505 So. 2d 35, 36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); see Dober v. Worrell, 401 So. 2d 1322, 1324 (Fla.1981); Palm Beach Estates v. Croker, 106 Fla. 617, 143 So. 792 (1932); Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 206 So. 2d 688, 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); cf. Brickell Place C…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Coudry v. City OF Titusville, 438 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Fla. AIR Conditioners, Inc. v. Colonial Supply Co., 390 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Grady v. Grady, 395 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Tanning Research Labs., Inc. v. DON Suntan Corp., 482 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Fields v. Hurley Nichols, 482 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)