MICHAEL J. CARR, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD F. ESLINGER, ETC., 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.
Appellant Carr appealed the trial court's grant of judgment on the pleadings dismissing Count IV of his complaint against Safehouse of Seminole. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow Carr to amend his complaint before dismissing it.
The court held that although a successor judge may reconsider a predecessor's non-final ruling, the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow Carr to amend the complaint. While Count IV fails to state a cause of action for a Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act violation, other tortious conduct claims might be available, and the refusal to permit amendment was improper given the lack of demonstrated prejudice and no clear futility.
[1] A successor judge may reconsider and enter a dispositive order contrary to a prior non-final ruling by a predecessor judge.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a party an opportunity to amend a complaint when no prejudice is demonstrated, the privilege to amend has not been abused,…
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“Refusal to allow an amendment is an abuse of discretion unless it is clear 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 a trial court may refuse to permit amendment of a complaint.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarr filed a complaint against Safehouse of Seminole, among other defendants. Count IV of the complaint sought relief based on an alleged violation of…
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 Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the lower court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings on Count IV of the complaint in favor of Appellee, Safehouse of Seminole (“Safehouse”).1 Because Count IV is the only count seeking relief from Safehouse, we have jurisdiction. The trial judge’s predecessor denied a defense motion to dismiss Count IV based on the contention that it failed to state a cause of action. After further litigation, Safehouse filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the same perceived deficiencies as the prior motion to dismiss. The successor judge granted the motion, culminating in the final judgment now under review.
Appellant raises two points on appeal. The first is that the successor judge did not have authority to essentially overrule her predecessor. We reject this contention because the prior ruling was not final. See Whitlock v. Drazinic, 622 So.2d 142, 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (holding successor judge did not err in entering summary judgment even though prior judge had denied summary judgment). We nevertheless reverse the judgment based on Appellant’s second point — that he should have been permitted an opportunity to amend the complaint. Although Count IV fails to state a cause of action for a violation of the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, and such an action *424cannot successfully be alleged under the facts set forth in the complaint, a cause of action for other tortious conduct might be available under the facts alleged. Appellant requested an opportunity to amend the complaint in light of the trial court’s ruling. Refusal to allow an amendment is an abuse of discretion unless it is clear that allowing the amendment would prejudice the opposing party, the privilege to amend has been abused, or amendment would be futile. Laurencio v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 65 So.3d 1190, 1193 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Because no prejudice was demonstrated, Appellant had not abused the privilege, and because we cannot conclude that the proposed amendment would be futile, the trial court should have permitted the amendment.
'Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in favor of Safehouse and remand this cause for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LAWSON and JACOBUS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Glen Garron, LLC v. Marla Buchwald, 210 So. 3d 229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…determining “the better approach under the facts of this case would have been for the trial court to have dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, rather than to have dismissed the complaint with prejudice” (footnote omitted)); Carr v. Eslinger, 101 So. 3d 423, 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Contractors Unlimited, Inc., 833 So. 2d at 288 (reversing a final judgment in favor of the plaintiff for failure to attach the instrument sued upon to the complaint but permitting the plaintiff to file an amended complaint…
-
Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Zorie, 146 So. 3d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…As a result of our holding that the trial court erred when it granted the judgment on the pleadings, we decline to discuss whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the motion to amend the complaint. See generally Carry. Eslinger, 101 So. 3d 423, 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (reversing trial court's denial of plaintiff’s request to amend a complaint after the trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for failure to state a cause of action); see also Crown v. Chase Home Fin., 41 So. 3d 978, 9…1 / 2
-
PWBC, LLC. v. Palm Vista Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 417 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Laurencio v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 65 So. 3d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Trester L. Bryson v. State, 622 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Whitlock v. Stephan E. Drazinic, M.D. & Stephan E. Drazinic, M.D., P.A., 622 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)