CAROL SOUCY, APPELLANT,
v.
HUGH DALTON CASPER, III, AND ROSEMARY L. WELLS, APPELLEES
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.
Carol Soucy appeals a summary judgment in her favor being denied regarding a release she signed settling her loss of consortium claim in a motor vehicle accident case. The court reverses, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion to amend her complaint to add a reformation count based on mutual mistake.
The court reversed the summary judgment, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion to amend. Amendments should be liberally granted under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a), particularly when made before the summary judgment hearing, and can only be denied when the privilege is abused or the amendment would be futile.
[1] A trial court errs in denying a motion for leave to amend a complaint when the motion is made prior to a hearing on a motion for summary judgment and the amendment is not…
[2] Leave to amend a complaint should be liberally granted, particularly when the motion is made before a hearing on a motion for summary judgment.
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“a motion for leave to amend should be liberally granted, particularly when the motion is made prior to the hearing on the motion for summary judgment”
Establishes the liberal standard for amendment in Florida procedure
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarol Soucy and her husband were injured in a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by Hugh Casper and Rosemary Wells. The husband settled his perso…
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 Reformation Of Release cases and more on FLexlaw
RAMIREZ, JUAN, Jr., Associate Judge.
This is the companion case to Soucy v. Casper, 658 So. 2d 1015. Carol Soucy appeals a final summary judgment in favor of Rosemary Wells and Allstate, her insurer. We reverse.
Appellant and her husband were injured in a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by Hugh D. Casper and Rosemary L. Wells. Prior to appellant filing suit, her husband settled his personal injury claim with three insurance companies, all of which had tendered their policy limits. One of these companies was Allstate Insurance Company, Wells’ insurance carrier. Both appellant and her husband signed a pre-printed form release from Allstate.
Appellant claims that she only signed the release settling her derivative claim for loss of consortium. The release was for the amount of $25,000, the policy limit per person on Wells’ policy. It contained no language limiting the release to her loss of consortium claim.
We hereby adopt the reasoning of the Casper case to justify our reversal. But in addition, appellant in this case filed a motion for leave to amend her complaint to add a count for reformation of the release to show mutual mistake. The trial court erred in denying her motion. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a) states that a motion for leave to amend should be liberally granted, particularly when the motion is made prior to the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. Smith v. Barrett, 564 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Leavitt v. Garson, 528 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Leave to amend should only be denied when the privilege has been abused or the amendment would be futile to state a cause of action. Gamma Dev. Corp. v. Steinberg, 621 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Kairalla v. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Found., 534 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Dryden Waterproofing, Inc. v. Bogard, 488 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). This was appellant’s first attempt to amend her complaint. Cf. Alvarez v. DeAguirre, 395 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Appellee asserts that appellant abused her privilege because she waited until a few days before the hearing on the motion for summary judgment to move to amend the complaint. The trial judge made no specific finding that appellee would be prejudiced by appellant exercising her privilege by amending the complaint or that the amendment would be futile. The Leavitt, court reversed summary judgment where the plaintiff attempted to amend five days before the summary motion hearing. In Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Thompson Aircraft Tire Corp., 353 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), the court reversed a denial of the plaintiffs oral motion to amend made at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. Accord Haag v. Phillips, 333 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Greenburg v. Johnston, 367 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). It was an abuse of discretion to deny appellant’s motion to amend her complaint.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DELL, C.J., and STONE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dimick v. RAY, 774 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…denied, 415 So. 2d 1360 (Fla.1982). Leavitt v. Carson, 528 So. 2d 108, 110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Amendments should be liberally granted, particularly when the motion is made prior to the hearing on a motion for summary judgment. See Soucy v. Casper, 658 So. 2d 1017, 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(citing Smith v. Barrett, 564 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), and Leavitt v. Garson). Abuse of the amendment process No abuse of the amendment process has been shown. Here, we do not have a virtual endless stream of amendm…
-
Ramos v. Mast, 789 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…plaint. We also reverse the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to amend his [*1228] complaint. Leave to amend should not be denied unless the privilege to amend has been abused or the complaint is clearly not amendable. See Soucy v. Casper, 658 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Imperial Bonita Estates, Inc. v. Minster, 283 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). Here, the court made no finding that the privilege was abused or that appellee would be prejudiced by the amendment. REVERSED. POLEN C.J., STEVENSON…
-
Soucy v. Casper, 658 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…RAMIREZ, JUAN, Jr., Associate Judge. This appeal is the companion ease to Soucy v. Wells, 658 So. 2d 1017 (Fla.App.1995), following a final summary judgment entered by the trial court in favor of Hugh Dalton Cas-per against Carol Soucy. We reverse. Appellant and her husband were injured in a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by Hugh D. Casper and…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Nazario Alvarez v. DeAGUIRRE, 395 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Thompson Aircraft Tire Corp., 353 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Gamma Dev. Corp. v. Steinberg, 621 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Mendez v. State, 534 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Greenburg v. Johnston, 367 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Dryden Waterproofing, Inc. v. Bogard, 488 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Haag v. Phillips, 333 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Jones v. State, 528 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Soucy v. Casper, 658 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Leavitt v. Garson, 528 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)