HILDA GUEVARA, APPELLANT,
v.
RODO GUEVARA, ET AL., 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.
Hilda Guevara appealed a trial court's dismissal of her petition to set aside a 2006 final judgment of dissolution and marital settlement agreement. The appellate court reversed in part, allowing Hilda to amend her pleading regarding her claim that she did not receive $250,000 for her interest in apartment property as promised, but affirmed dismissal of her fraud and other claims.
The court reversed the dismissal with prejudice as to Hilda's claim that she did not receive the $250,000 owed under the MSA and remanded for her to amend that claim, but affirmed the dismissal of her fraud claim and other related claims in the petition.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by dismissing a petition with prejudice when justice requires that the petitioner be permitted to amend the pleading.
[2] Leave to amend a pleading shall be given freely when justice so requires.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“We find that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the Petition with prejudice with regard to Hilda's claim that she did not receive the $250,000 in exchange for her interest in the apartments as provided for in the MSA.”
Establishes the core holding that dismissal of the $250,000 claim was improper and represents an 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 intelligenceHilda and Rodo Guevara executed a marital settlement agreement in 2005 that provided they would continue to own an apartment building in Miami as tena…
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
The appellant, Hilda Guevara (“Hilda”), appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing her Petition and Independent Action to set Aside Final Judgment and Other Relief (the “Petition”) with prejudice. We reverse in part and affirm in part.
Hilda and appellee, Rodo Guevara (“Rodo”), entered into a marital settlement agreement (the “MSA”) in 2005. Among other things, the MSA contained a provision that the parties would continue to own an apartment building located in Miami (the “apartments”) as tenants in common but that Rodo would have the right to purchase Hilda’s interest in the apartments for $250,000 at any time within the first three years from the date of execution of the MSA. A final judgment of dissolution, approving and ratifying the MSA, was entered on February 14, 2006. In 2013, Hilda filed the instant Petition seeking to set aside the final judgment of dissolution and the MSA on the basis of fraud. Additionally, concerning the apartments, Hilda alleged that Rodo orchestrated a “sham sale” of her interest in the apartments, and that she never received the $250,000 in exchange for her interest in the apartments as provided for in the MSA. To that end, Hilda alleged claims in the Petition for declaratory relief and cancellation of quit claim deed, accounting, and slander of title. Rodo and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and the trial court subsequently entered an order dismissing the Petition with prejudice.
We find that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the Petition with prejudice with regard to Hilda’s claim that she did not receive the $250,000 in exchange for her interest in the apartments *257as provided for in the MSA. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(a) (stating that “[ljeave of court [to amend a pleading] shall be given freely when justice so requires”); see also Grove Isle Ass’n, Inc. v. Grove Isle Assocs., LLLP, 137 So.3d 1081, 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014); Kay’s Custom, Drapes, Inc. v. Garrote, 920 So.2d 1168, 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). As it relates to all other claims raised in the Petition, however, we affirm the trial court’s order dismissing the Petition with prejudice. On remand, Hilda shall be permitted to amend only with regard to her claim that she did not receive the $250,000 to which she is entitled under the MSA.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Grove Isle Ass'n, Inc. v. Grove Isle Assocs., LLLP, 137 So. 3d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Kay's Custom Drapes, Inc. v. Garrote, 920 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)