PRECISION CONSTRUCTORS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
VALTEC CONSTRUCTION CORP., 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.
Precision Constructors appeals a bench trial judgment, arguing the trial was held before the case was "at issue" under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the plaintiff's amended complaint reopened the pleadings, invalidating the original trial notice and requiring a new notice of trial after pleadings closed.
The court held that the trial was conducted in violation of Rule 1.440 because the case was not "at issue" when tried. An action is not "at issue" until pleadings are closed, which occurs 20 days after service of the last pleading or when motions directed to the pleadings are disposed of. Failure to adhere strictly to Rule 1.440's mandates is reversible error.
[1] A case is not "at issue" until the pleadings are closed.
[2] A trial court commits reversible error by failing to strictly adhere to the mandates of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440 regarding when a case is at issue.
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“An action is not "at issue" until the pleadings are closed.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that pleadings must be closed before trial can properly occur under Rule 1.440.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePrecision Constructors, the defendant below, was scheduled for trial based on an original notice of trial. However, the plaintiff Valtec Construction …
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.440 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Precision Constructors, Inc., the defendant below, appeals from a final judgment in favor of Valtec Construction Corp., the plaintiff below, following a bench trial.
We reverse as the case was tried before it was “at issue,” in contravention of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440. The original notice for trial was no longer viable after the plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint, thereby reopening the pleadings. See Nystrom v. Nystrom, 105 So. 2d 605, 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958) (noting that if the defendant’s motion to amend her answer had been granted, “then the pleadings would be reopened and the cause would really be no longer at issue.”).1 An action is not “at issue” until the pleadings are closed. See id.; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(a). Here, the case was not at issue until 20 days after the defendant filed its answer to the amended complaint.2 See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(a). By then, however, the case had already been tried.
Failure to adhere strictly to the mandates of Rule 1.440 is reversible error.3 See Bennett v. Continental Chemicals, Inc., 492 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Accordingly, the judgment is vacated and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
. This reasoning is consistent with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(a), which provides that “[a]n action is at issue after any motions directed to the last pleading served have been disposed of, or if no such motions are served, 20 days after service of the last pleading.” (emphasis supplied.)
. Rule 1.440 also provides that an action may be ready for trial before the 20 day period expires if "the party [here, the plaintiff] entitled to serve motions directed to the last pleading," waives its right to file such motions by filing a notice for trial at any time. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(a). This provision is of no consequence here as the plaintiff did not file a notice for trial at any time after the last pleading-defendant’s answer to the amended complaint-was served.
.Under Rule 1.440, the proper procedure in this case would have been to serve a new notice for trial after the pleadings were finally closed (that is, after the defendant filed its answer to the amended complaint and any motions directed to the pleadings resolved) and the trial set for no earlier than 30 days after service of the notice for trial. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(a)-(c).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea, 170 So. 3d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…of N.Y. Mellon, 162 So. 3d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); BAC Home Loans Servicing L.P. v. Parrish, 146 So. 3d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Genuine Parts Co. v. Parsons, 917 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Precision Constructors, Inc. v. Valtec Constr. Corp., 825 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Dep’t of Revenue v. Marcovitch, 765 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Cardozo v. Cardozo, 705 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); S.W.T. v. C.A.P., 595 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Rivera v. Rivera, 562 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 199…
-
Ocean Bank v. Garcia-Villalta, 141 So. 3d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…ore case was “at issue” in contravention of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440 where a responsive pleading to counterclaim had not been filed prior to issuing the order setting case for trial); Precision Constructors, Inc. v. Valtec Const. Corp., 825 So. 2d 1062, 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Bennett v. Cont’l Chems., Inc., 492 So. 2d 724, 727 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (en banc) (“An answer must be served by or a default entered against all defending parties before the action is at issue.” (quoting Trawick’s Flor…
-
Tucker v. The Bank OF NEW York Mellon, 175 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…for trial by the court any sooner than 30 days after service of the notice of trial.4 As we have previously held, “[fjailure to adhere strictly to the mandates of Rule 1.440 is reversible error.” Precision Constructors, Inc. v. Valtec Const. Corp., 825 So. 2d 1062, 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (citing Bennett v. Continental Chemicals, Inc., 492 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)). Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment of foreclosure in favor of appellee and the orders denying appellant’s motion to strike arid ap…
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
- Rodger H. Bennett v. Cont'l Chems., Inc., 492 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Nystrom v. Nystrom, 105 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)