TARA COLANDREA, APPELLANT,
v.
CANDACE A. KING AND MICHELLE D. MORTON, 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.
A plaintiff who filed a negligence complaint within the statute of limitations but inadvertently omitted the word 'negligently' sought to amend her complaint after the limitations period expired. The court held that the amendment relates back to the original filing date under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(c), and therefore the statute of limitations does not bar the amendment.
The court reversed and remanded, holding that the statute of limitations does not bar amendment of the complaint because the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(c), and the original complaint was filed within the limitations period. The trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend when no prejudice to the opposing party was demonstrated.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion when it denies a motion to amend a complaint if the amendment would not prejudice the opposing party, the privilege to amend has not b…
[2] Leave to amend a complaint should be freely given when justice so requires, especially when the amendment is based on the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the…
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“It is the public policy of Florida to freely allow amendments to pleadings so cases may be resolved on their merits. It is an abuse of discretion to disallow amendment of a pleading unless it clearly appears the amendment would prejudice the opposing party, the privilege to amend has been abused, or amendment would be futile.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing trial court decisions on motions to amend pleadings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTara Colandrea filed a two-count complaint against Candace King and Michelle Morton for personal injuries arising from two separate automobile acciden…
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 Relation Back Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Chief Judge.
Tara Colandrea, plaintiff in an action for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident, appeals an order that dismisses her complaint with prejudice and denies her motion for leave to amend the complaint. We reverse.
Colandrea filed a two-count complaint against Candace King and Michelle Morton seeking damages for injuries arising out of two separate automobile accidents. The complaint was filed within the four-year limitations period set forth for negligence actions in section 95.11(8), Florida Statutes (1989). The complaint, however, failed to allege that the defendants King and Morton operated their respective vehicles negligently. In all other respects, the complaint was adequate to withstand a motion to dismiss. After the statute of limitations period had run, King moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The trial judge dismissed the complaint with prejudice, explaining that to permit amendment would create a new cause of action and would allow an extension of the statute of limitations. In her motion for rehearing, Colandrea explained that the word “negligently” was inadvertently omitted from the complaint because of computer error. The trial court denied Colandrea’s motion to amend.
It is the public policy of Florida to freely allow amendments to pleadings so cases may be resolved on their merits. It is an abuse of discretion to disallow amendment of a pleading unless it clearly appears the amendment would prejudice the opposing party, the privilege to amend has been abused, or amendment would be futile. Thompson v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 615 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). This was Colandrea’s first attempt to amend the complaint and she was able to allege negligence.
The statute of limitations did not bar amendment of the complaint in this case. The statute of limitations generally must be raised as an affirmative defense in an answer. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(d). No answer or affirmative defenses were filed in this case. Rule 1.110(d) provides: “Affirmative defenses appearing on the face of a prior pleading may be asserted as grounds for a motion or defense under rule 1.140(b); provided this shall not limit amendments under rule 1.190 even if such ground is sustained.” The statute of limitations defense did not, however, appear on the face of the original complaint because the original complaint was filed within four years of the accident dates alleged in the complaint.
The proposed amended complaint in this case was clearly based upon the same occurrence between the same parties as was alleged in the original complaint. Pursuant to rule 1.190(c), the amendment related back to the date of the original pleading. Because the original complaint was filed within the statute of limitations period, the trial court erred in ruling the amendment was barred.
Reversed and remanded.
PARKER and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Armiger v. Associated Outdoor Clubs, Inc., 48 So. 3d 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…la. 2d DCA 2010). “It is an abuse of discretion to disallow amendment of a pleading unless it clearly appears the amendment would prejudice the opposing party, the privilege to amend has been abused, or amendment would be futile.” Colandrea v. King, 661 So. 2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). But we review de novo the question of whether a proposed amended complaint is sufficient to state a cause of action. See Vaughn v. Boerckel, 20 So. 3d 443, 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). [*869] B. Summary Judgment The standard o…
-
Mathis v. Coats, 24 So. 3d 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…la. 2d DCA 1992). “It is an abuse of discretion to disallow amendment of a pleading unless it clearly appears the amendment would prejudice the opposing party, the privilege to amend has been abused, or amendment would be futile.” Colandrea v. King, 661 So. 2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). To the extent Ms. Mathis purported to revitalize a false arrest claim, she must fail. The proposed amendment as to either the Sheriff or Deputy McKenzie on a false arrest theory would be futile; probable cause existed to a…
-
Llamira Nieves v. Senior Health TNF, LLC (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)…a stay or abatement. amendment would prejudice the opposing party, the privilege to amend has been abused, or amendment would be futile." Armiger v. Associated Outdoor Clubs, Inc., 48 So. 3d 864, 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (quoting Colandrea v. King, 661 So. 2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)). Seemingly, the trial court denied leave to amend because the relation-back doctrine would prejudice Whispering Oaks by depriving it of its statutory protections under section 768.381. See generally § 768.38(1) ("The threa…
Authorities Cited
- Thompson v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 615 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)