ANTHONY E. RAMOS, APPELLANT,
v.
GROWING TOGETHER, INC., A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT 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.
Ramos appeals from a summary judgment granted against him based on deemed admissions arising from his defective responses to requests for admissions. The court reverses, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant relief from technical admissions under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.370(b), which favors allowing cases to proceed on the merits.
The trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant relief from the technical admissions and refusing to permit amendment of his responses. The liberal standard of rule 1.370(b) favors amendment to allow disposition on the merits, and defendant was entitled to relief where he timely moved, the admissions were technical in nature, and plaintiff failed to demonstrate prejudice.
[1] A court may permit withdrawal or amendment of admissions when doing so will subserve the presentation of the merits of the action and the party who obtained the admission…
[2] The liberal standard for amending admissions favors amendment to allow disposition on the merits.
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“the court may permit withdrawal or amendment when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved by it and the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice that party in maintaining an action or defense on the merits”
The governing standard in rule 1.370(b) that favors allowing amendment and withdrawal of admissions to permit disposition on the merits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff served requests for admissions on defendant at a time when the original complaint had been dismissed and the amended complaint had not yet b…
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 Disposition On The Merits cases and more on FLexlaw
PARIENTE, Judge.
Defendant appeals from a non-final order granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on the issue of liability in an action for breach of an oral lease, conversion and civil theft. We reverse because the trial court should have granted defendant relief from the effect of his “technical admissions” pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.370(b).
Plaintiff served its Request for Admissions on defendant at a time when the original complaint had been dismissed and the amended complaint had not been filed, raising a question as to when the responses to the Request for Admissions were due. Defendant, in fact, filed responses to the Request for Admissions 30 days after the amended complaint was filed. However, the responses did not admit or deny the truth of the assertions. Rather, defendant claimed in his responses that his law firm should have been named as the defendant instead of him in his individual capacity.
Plaintiff moved to strike defendant’s responses. The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion, but ruled that because the responses did not comply with the requirements of rule 1.370(a), the assertions in the requests would be deemed admitted. Defendant promptly filed a motion for relief from admissions, requesting permission to amend and alleging that his technical admissions were contrary to the true facts of the case. While there is no separate order denying defendant’s motion for relief, the motion was effectively denied when the trial court granted summary judgment on the basis of his technical admissions.
Rule 1.370(b) provides:
[T]he court may permit withdrawal or amendment when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved by it and the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice that party in maintaining an action or defense on the merits.
This liberal standard favors amendment in most cases in order to allow disposition on the merits. See Melody Tours, Inc. v. Granville Mkt. Letter, Inc., 413 So. 2d 450, 451 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). See also Habib v. Maison Du Vin Francois, Inc., 528 So. 2d 553, 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). “The use of admissions obtained through a technicality should not form a basis to preclude adjudication of a legitimate claim.” Sterling v. City of West Palm Beach, 595 So. 2d 284, 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); see also Sher v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 557 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
The trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant defendant relief from the admissions and in denying his request to amend his responses. Here, defendant timely filed a motion to grant relief from the admissions. Cf. Singer v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 512 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Plaintiff did not establish that it would be prejudiced by permitting defendant leave to amend and proceed to the merits. See Habib.
Additionally, the record before us shows disputed issues of fact. Although the affidavit offered by defendant was untimely filed one day before the hearing on the motion for summary judgment and thus was properly not considered, see Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510, defendant’s answers to plaintiff’s interrogatories created disputed issues of fact. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to vacate the order granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff.
GLICKSTEIN and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. The Chase Manhattan Bank, 875 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…ely response to request for admissions. The affidavit in opposition to summary judgment clearly contradicted the technical admissions and Chase Manhattan failed to show “prejudice” within the meaning of the rule. See Ramos v. Growing Together, Inc., 672 So. 2d 103, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Second, the sanction of dismissal was too harsh and legally inappropriate for the failure to timely comply with the request for admissions.2 An express written finding of a party’s willful or deliberate refusal to obey a c…1 / 2
-
John J. Koresko V & Koresko & Assocs. v. Emmett D. COE & FNC Corp., 683 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…ary judgment is not required to file an affidavit to counter the movant’s affidavits. Elliott v. Dugger, 542 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Further, answers to interrogatories can create disputed issues of fact. See Ramos v. Growing Together, Inc., 672 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Reversed and remanded. FRANK, A.C.J., and FICARROTTA, GASPER J., Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Asset Mgmt. Consultants OF Va., Inc. v. City OF Tamarac, 913 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…ill prejudice that party in maintaining an action or defense on the merits. [*1181] Although a liberal standard favors allowing amendments to permit disposition on the merits, rather than on technical admissions, see Ramos v. Growing Together, Inc., 672 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), even that standard has its limits. Here, given the lack of any diligence in moving to file belated answers until after the City’s motion for summary judgment was heard, we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion. T…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mort Sher v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 557 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Jewell Sterling v. City OF W. Palm Beach & State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 595 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Melody Tours, Inc. v. Granville Mkt. Letter, Inc., 413 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Rutledge v. State, 512 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Habib v. Maison DU VIN Francais, Inc., 528 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)