MICHAEL CUDAHY, APPELLANT,
v.
RONALD L. FICK AND DUNWODY, WHITE & LANDON, P.A., 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 court reversed the dismissal of Cudahy's complaint against his mother's attorney and law firm, holding that Cudahy had the right to amend his complaint once under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a) because the defendant had not filed a responsive pleading.
A plaintiff has the right to amend a complaint once as of right under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a) when the defendant has not yet filed a responsive pleading.
[1] A plaintiff retains the right to amend a complaint once as of right under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a) until the defendant files a responsive pleading, regard…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCudahy was the remainder beneficiary of a qualified personal residence trust holding his mother's house, and Fick was his mother's attorney. Cudahy su…
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 Right To Amend Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Michael Cudahy appeals an order dismissing with prejudice his claims against Ronald Fick and Dunwody, White & Landon, P.A. Cudahy was the remainder beneficiary of a qualified personal residence trust established to hold Cudahy’s mother’s house. Fick was Cudahy’s mother’s attorney. Cudahy raised several issues in this appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying Cudahy’s motion to amend the complaint; (2) whether the statute of limitations warrants dismissal of Cudahy’s complaint with prejudice; and (3) whether the defendants owed the plaintiff a duty.
We agree with Cudahy that pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a) he had the right to amend the complaint once because Fick had not filed a responsive pleading and he had not previously amended his complaint. The supreme court’s decision in Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So.2d 561 (Fla.2005), supports Cu-dahy’s position that his right to amend once did not expire since Fick had not yet filed a responsive pleading. We reverse on this one issue alone and remand to allow Cudahy leave to amend the complaint. Because the other issues raised by Cudahy may recur after the trial court considers his amended complaint, we do not address them at this time.
Reversed.
POLEN, LEVINE, JJ., and GREENHAWT, SUSAN, Associate Judge, concur.