ROBERT R. KRILICH, INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS AS THE RK COMPANY, DONNA KRILICH, AND OAKBROOK REALTY & INVESTMENTS II, LLC, APPELLANTS,
v.
MICHAEL THOMAS; LOLA THOMAS; OAKRIDGE HOTEL I, LTD.; OAKRIDGE HOSPITALITY, INC.; EXCEL HOTEL MANAGEMENT, INC.; ATLANTIC POINT, INC. AND OAKRIDGE HOTEL II, LTD., 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.
The Krilichs appealed the dismissal of their complaint for specific performance and the denial of their request to amend. The court affirmed the dismissal on the merits but reversed the denial of the amendment request, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow amendment when no clear prejudice, abuse of privilege, or futility would result.
The trial court properly dismissed the complaint on the merits, but abused its discretion in denying the request to amend because allowing amendment would not prejudice the opposing party, the privilege to amend had not been abused (only one prior amendment), and the amendment would not be futile.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a request to amend a pleading when amendment would not prejudice the opposing party, the privilege to amend has not been ab…
[2] Refusal to allow amendment of a pleading constitutes an abuse of discretion unless it clearly appears that allowing the amendment would prejudice the opposing party, the…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“'[RJefusal to allow amendment of a pleading constitutes an abuse of discretion unless it clearly appears that allowing the amendment would prejudice the opposing party; the privilege to amend has been abused; or amendment would be futile.'”
Establishes the legal standard for when denial of amendment constitutes abuse of discretion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Krilichs filed an amended complaint against the Thomas defendants seeking specific performance. The trial court dismissed the complaint with preju…
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 Denying Leave to Amend cases and more on FLexlaw
LEVIN, STEVEN J„ Associate Judge.
Appellants, Robert R. Krilich, individually and doing business as the RK Company, Donna Krilich, and Oakbrook Realty & Investments II, LLC (collectively referred to as “the Krilichs”), appeal the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of their amended complaint against Appellees, Michael Thomas, Lola Thomas, Oakridge Hotel I, Ltd., Oakridge Hospitality, Inc., Excel Hotel Management, Inc., Atlantic Point, Inc., and Oakridge Hotel II, Ltd. (collectively referred to as “Thomas”). The Krilichs also appeal the trial court’s denial of their request for leave to amend.
We affirm the trial court’s ruling dismissing the Krilichs’ complaint for specific performance. However, we remand the matter for the trial court to allow the Krilichs to amend their complaint, as the lower court abused its discretion in denying their request to amend. “ ‘[RJefusal to allow amendment of a pleading constitutes an abuse of discretion unless it clearly appears that allowing the amendment would prejudice the opposing party; the privilege to amend has been abused; or amendment would be futile.’ ” Video Indep. Med. Examination, Inc. v. City of Weston, 792 So. 2d 680, 681 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoting Spradley v. Stick, 622 So. 2d 610, 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)). An amendment would not prejudice Thomas. In addition, the privilege to amend has not been abused, as the complaint has been amended on only one occasion and “[gjenerally, a trial court is within its discretion to dismiss a complaint with prejudice after three opportunities to amend.” Horton v. Freeman, 917 So. 2d 1064, 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). Finally, the amendment would not be futile.
Therefore, this matter is remanded to allow the Krilichs to amend their complaint, and affirmed in all other aspects of the opinion.
Affirmed in Part; Reversed and Remanded in Part.
SHAHOOD, C.J. and TAYLOR, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vaughn v. Boerckel, 20 So. 3d 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…vilege to amend has been abused, or amendment would be futile.” Dieudonne v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 994 So. 2d 505, 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (quoting Gilbert v. Florida Power Light Co., 981 So. 2d 609, 612 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)); Krilich v. Thomas, 973 So. 2d 1244, 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). However, whether a complaint is sufficient to state a cause of action is an issue of law subject to de novo review. Siegle v. Progressive Consumers Ins. Co., 819 So. 2d 732, 734 (Fla.2002). In this case, the record does n…
Authorities Cited
- Spradley v. Doctor Michael O. Stick & Hamilton Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., 622 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Video Indep. Med. Examination, Inc. v. City OF Weston, 792 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Robinson v. State, 917 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)