STARVEST U.S., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, JACQUES DEBRUIJN (A/K/A JACQUES DEBRUYN), AND TELSTAR EURAMCO, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM POLFER D/B/A BANK SURPLUS SALES, 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 a motion for declaratory judgment filed after responsive pleadings requires leave of court.
Appellee filed a complaint and later a motion for declaratory judgment to construe a lease without seeking leave of court. The trial court granted 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 Leave Of Court cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
The appellants, Starvest U.S., Inc., Jacques DeBruijn, and Telstar Euramco, Inc., challenge a nonfinal order granting a motion for declaratory judgment which construes a written lease for commercial property in favor of the appellee, William Polfer, d/b/a Bank Surplus Sales. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Polfer filed a complaint against the appellants and requested injunctive relief, possession, and specific performance. After the appellants filed a responsive pleading, Polfer filed a motion for declaratory judgment to construe a written lease for commercial property. The trial court entered an order granting the motion.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a) provides that once an original complaint and a responsive pleading have been filed, “a party may amend a pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party.” Here, Polfer failed to obtain leave of court. He also brought an action by motion which he should have brought by a complaint for declaratory relief. As the parties have stipulated, the motion for declaratory judg ment was a nullity because Polfer neither requested nor received leave of court. See Fusilier v. Markov, 676 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Warner-Lambert Co. v. Patrick, 428 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Florida Power & Light v. System Council U-4 of the Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, 307 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 105 (Fla.1976). Thus, we reverse the order granting the motion for declaratory judgment. On remand, Polfer may properly amend the complaint and seek a declaratory judgment.
Reversed and remanded.
FRANK, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Explorer Ins. Co. v. Van Bockel, 948 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…complaint, see Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(a), and because Van Bockel never received leave of court, the amended complaint asserting the bad faith action against Explorer pursuant to section 624.155 was a legal nullity. See Starvest U.S., Inc. v. Polfer, 694 So. 2d 875, 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding that an amended complaint filed without leave of court when leave of court is required is a nullity); Warner-Lambert Co. v. Patrick, 428 So. 2d 718, 719 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (“It is not a large or difficult procedure…
Authorities Cited
- Warner-Lambert Co. v. Patrick, 428 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Sys. Council U-4 OF the Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, 307 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Fusilier v. Markov, 676 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)