OVERNIGHT SUCCESS CONSTRUCTION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
PAVARINI CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. AND UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY CO., 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.
Overnight Success Construction appealed a summary judgment in favor of Pavarini Construction and challenged the trial court's allowance of Pavarini's amendment to affirmative defenses late in litigation. The court affirmed, holding that the amendment was properly granted within the trial court's discretion and that Overnight was not entitled to attorney's fees as a non-prevailing party.
The court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in granting the amendment and no support under Florida law for awarding attorney's fees and costs to Overnight. The trial court properly exercised discretion under Rule 1.190(a) because substantial time had elapsed since the settlement offer with minimal intervening litigation, and Florida law does not support conditioning amendments on payment of attorney's fees.
[1] A trial court's decision to grant a motion to amend pleadings is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
[2] Doubts regarding the amendment of pleadings should be resolved in favor of allowing the amendment.
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 standard of review of an order granting a motion to amend is abuse of discretion.”
Establishes the applicable standard for reviewing trial court decisions on amendment motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOvernight sued Pavarini, its contractor, in June 2001. BAC Funding Corporation, Overnight's lender and holder of assigned account receivables, made a …
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 To Amend Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Overnight Success Construction, Inc.’s motion for rehearing, and Overnight’s request for clarification of this Court’s November 15, 2006 opinion to correct scrivener’s errors are granted. Accordingly, we withdraw the prior opinion issued November 15, 2006, and issue the following clarified opinion in its place. Overnight appeals the entry of an adverse summary judgment and the denial of its motion for rehearing. We affirm, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s granting of appellee Pavarini Construction Co., Inc.’s motion to amend affirmative defenses, and no support for the award of attorney’s fees and costs in favor of Overnight as the non-prevailing party below.
The underlying suit began in June of 2001 when Overnight sued Pavarini, its contractor. BAC Funding Corporation was Overnight’s lender and the holder of an assignment of Overnight’s account receivables. In January of 2002, Pavarini made a settlement offer to BAC which Overnight subsequently rejected. BAC intervened in the Overnight and Pavarini lawsuit over one year later. On December 24, 2003, almost two years after Overnight filed suit and shortly before the re-scheduled trial date of March 15, 2004, Pavarini moved to amend its affirmative defenses. The trial court granted the motion to amend. During the subsequent nineteen months, the court continued trial several times during which the parties also conducted discovery of the underlying contract claims. The court ultimately entered judgment in Pavarini’s favor, and denied Overnight’s request for attorney’s fees and costs incurred before the amendment.
Overnight argues that the amendment caused it undue prejudice and that it was entitled to attorney’s fees and costs incurred prior to the amendment. We cannot agree that the amendment caused Overnight any prejudice on the record before us, and there is no support in Florida law for the payment of attorney’s fees and costs in Overnight’s favor under these circumstances.
The standard of review of an order granting a motion to amend is abuse of discretion. See Yun Enters., Ltd. v. Graziani, 840 So. 2d 420, 422-23 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Rule 1.190(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, provides for leave to amend pleadings when justice so requires. The decision to grant leave to amend rests upon the trial court’s discretion, and any doubts should be resolved in favor of the amendment. See Thompson v. Jared Kane Co., 872 So. 2d 356, 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
Here, there is no reversible abuse of discretion in light of the amount of time that elapsed between the day on which Pavarini made its settlement offer to BAC and the filing of Pavarini’s motion to amend, during which no substantial litigation transpired between Overnight and Pa-varini. Furthermore, there is no justification for the award of attorney’s fees and costs in Overnight’s favor. Florida law does not support Overnight’s contention that the trial court should have pre-condi-tioned the amendment on the payment of attorney’s fees and costs. To hold otherwise would unfairly penalize the prevailing party.
We therefore affirm the trial court’s rulings in all respects.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grove Isle Ass'n, Inc. v. Grove Isle Assocs., LLLP, 137 So. 3d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…nd A trial court’s order denying leave to amend a pleading is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Rodriguez v. Recovery Performance & Marine, LLC, 38 So. 3d 178, 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Overnight Success Constr., Inc. v. Pavarini Constr. Co., [*1090] 955 So. 2d 658, 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); see also Gate Lands Co. v. Old Ponte Vedra Beach Condo., 715 So. 2d 1132, 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). “A trial court should give leave to amend a deficient complaint unless ... the complaint shows on its face that there is a…
-
Flagship Resort Dev. Corp. v. Interval Int'l, Inc., 28 So. 3d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…equires.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(a). Indeed, the decision to grant leave to amend is within the discretion of the trial court, and any doubts are to be resolved in favor of the amendment. Overnight Success Constr., Inc. v. Pavarini Constr. Co., Inc., 955 So. 2d 658, 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). Accordingly, we review an order granting a motion to amend for abuse of discretion. Id. III. ANALYSIS A. Summary Judgment as to Count I With respect to Count I of its amended complaint, Flagship contends that the RAA is u…1 / 2
-
Papunen v. Bay Nat'l Title Co., 271 So. 3d 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…). Leave of court to amend “shall be given freely when justice so requires,” Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a), and “any doubts should be resolved in favor of the amendment.” Overnight Success Const., Inc. v. Pavarini Const. Co., Inc., 955 So. 2d 658, 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). The final order of dismissal with prejudice is reversed, and the action is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- YUN Enters., Ltd. v. Graziani, 840 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Thompson v. Jared Kane Co., Inc., 872 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)