MARK PELKEY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE COMMANDER MOTEL CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Mark Pelkey appealed the denial of his motion to strike untimely responses to a request for admissions and his motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Fourth District affirmed, holding that a trial court may grant relief from admissions resulting from untimely responses even without a formal motion under Rule 1.370(b), and that the court did not abuse its discretion in accepting the appellee's four-day-late responses.
The court held that a trial court may grant relief from admissions resulting from untimely responses without requiring a formal motion under Rule 1.370(b). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in accepting the appellee's late responses, as they were only four days late, the appellee was unrepresented during most of the response period, Pelkey showed no prejudice, and accepting the responses facilitated presentation of the case on its merits.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by accepting belated responses to a request for admissions when the delay is minimal, the party was unrepresented for a signif…
[2] A trial court may grant relief from admissions resulting from a failure to timely respond to a request for admissions, even in the absence of a formal motion to withdraw…
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 intelligence“in the absence of a motion it is error to disregard the admissions resulting from the failure to timely respond to the request for admissions”
The Fifth District's holding in West v. West, which the Fourth District rejected
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePelkey sued The Commander Motel Corporation for damages with trial set for June 2, 1986. On April 17, 1986, the appellee's original attorney withdrew.…
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 Relief From Admissions cases and more on FLexlaw
WALDEN, Judge.
Mark Pelkey appeals the denial of his motion to strike responses to request for admissions and his motion for judgment on the pleadings. We affirm.
Pelkey brought an action for damages against The Commander Motel Corporation, appellee, and trial was set for this matter on June 2, 1986. On April 17, 1986, the court granted the appellee’s attorney’s motion to withdraw.
On April 29, 1986, Pelkey filed a request for admissions. Then, in response to Pel-key’s motion to shorten time for discovery, the court gave the appellee until May 12, 1986 to answer the request for admissions.
On May 16, 1986, the appellee's new attorney filed a notice of appearance and the responses to the request for admissions. Pelkey filed a motion to strike appellee’s responses for being untimely, and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Both these motions were denied, and ultimately, final judgment was entered against Pelkey.
On appeal, Pelkey argues that the appel-lee’s responses should have been struck because appellee did not file a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.370(b) to withdraw or amend the admissions, which resulted from not timely responding to the request for admissions. We recognize that the Fifth District, in West v. West, 436 So. 2d 1010,1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), held, “... in the absence of a motion it is error to disregard the admissions resulting from the failure to timely respond to the request for admissions.”
However, we disagree with West. We hold that the absence of a motion does not preclude the trial court from granting relief from admissions resulting from the failure to timely respond to the request for admissions.
In the instant case, the appellee’s responses were filed only four (4) days late, and during most of the time period in which the appellee should have responded, it was unrepresented. Moreover, Pelkey has not shown that he was prejudiced by the acceptance of the belated responses. As such, error in accepting the appellee’s belated responses, if any, was harmless.
Additionally, the withdrawal of the admissions would serve to facilitate the presentation of the case on its evidentiary merits. See DeAtley v. McKinley, 497 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Chong v. Peacock & Johnson, P.A., 486 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Thus, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting relief from the admissions, and in accepting the appellee’s belated responses.
AFFIRMED.
GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mort Sher v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 557 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…awal of the technical admissions and acceptance of the belated response would serve to facilitate the presentation of the case on its evidentiary merits.” DeAtley v. McKinley, 497 So. 2d 962, 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Pelkey v. Commander Motel Corp., 510 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Melody Tours, Inc. v. Granville Market Letter, Inc., 413 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Love v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 362 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.370(b); but see Morgan v. Thomson, 427 So. 2d 1134 (Fla.…
-
Scottie N. Singer v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 512 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…lure to move for relief and should consider the late answer and conflicting affidavit to deny summary judgment. See also Wood v. Fortune Insurance Co., 453 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We recognize that we held in Pelkey v. Commander Motel Corp., 510 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), that the absence of a motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.370(b) [*1127] does not preclude the trial court from granting relief from admissions resulting from the failure to timely respond to the request for admission…
-
Shlomo Chelminsky & Beach King, LLC v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co. (BB & T), 184 So. 3d 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…e made at a pretrial conference or at a designated time before trial.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.370(a). In July 2011, trial was not close and the homeowner had time to take discovery on the disputed issues in the case. See Pelkey v. Commander Motel Corp., 510 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). The admissions went to issues central to the foreclosure case and were contrary to proveable facts. -“The use -of admissions obtained through a technicality should not form a basis to preclude adjudication of a legitimate claim.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jackson v. State, 497 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Giles A. West v. West, 436 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Chong v. Peacock & Johnson, P.A., 486 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)