HORACE BENTE, D/B/A FLORIDA YACHT SALES OF FORT LAUDERDALE, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
GORDON H. NELSON, 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.
Failure to swear to answers to requests for admissions under Rule 1.30, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, means those requests must be deemed admitted.
The defendant failed to swear to their answers to requests for admissions. The resulting deemed admissions contained sufficient facts to warrant summa…
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 Deemed Admissions cases and more on FLexlaw
The controlling question involved in this appeal is the effect of a failure to swear to answers to requests for admissions under Rule 1.30, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A. Such answers do not meet the requirements of the rule and the requests must be deemed admitted at the expiration of the designated time for response.
Although the Court recognizes the harshness of this rule, it should be noted that in the instant case the record is devoid of any request by the answering party for an opportunity to amend his answers by attaching an oath. What the effect of such a request would be we need not and do not now decide.
The admissions resulting in the case sub judice contain sufficient facts to warrant the entry of a summary judgment for the Plaintiff-Appellee. In Ellison v. Anderson, 74 So.2d 680 (Fla.1954), and Kramer v. Landau, 113 So.2d 756 (3d Dist.Fla.App.1959), the defendants were forbidden to controvert their own admissions made in depositions by their own or affidavits of others. Although the Court has been cited no case in which this rule has been applied to admissions resulting from requests under Rule 1.30, the rationale of the two cases cited above would appear to apply and the Defendant-Appellants herein could not avoid the entry of an adverse summary judgment by such affidavits.
Affirmed.
SMITH, C. J.,' SHANNON, J., and TROWBRIDGE, C. PFEIFFER, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McKEAN v. Kloeppel Hotels, Inc., 171 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)…th a general exception of doubtful import, will constitute an admission.’ ” Appellant’s affidavit herein, filed subsequent to her responses to appellee’s requests for admissions, is ineffectual to controvert or vary said responses. Bente v. Nelson, 156 So. 2d 17 (Fla.App.2d 1963); Kramer v. Landau, 113 So. 2d 756 (Fla.App.3d 1959) ; Ellison v. Anderson, 74 So. 2d 680 (Fla.1954). In the Bente case the court, in sustaining a summary judgment based on admissions of the defendant, said: “The admissions resulti…
-
Croft v. York, 244 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…954), 74 So. 2d 680. . Andrews v. Midland National Insurance Company (Fla.App.1968), 208 So. 2d 136; Williams v. Duggan (Fla.App.1965), 172 So. 2d 844; McKean v. Kloeppel Hotels, Inc. (Fla. App.1965), 171 So. 2d 552; Bente v. Nelson (Fla.App.1963), 156 So. 2d 17; Kamer v. Landau (Fla.App.1959), 113 So. 2d 756.…
-
Elison v. Goodman, 395 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ton v. Sloane Co. of Sarasota, 240 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970); Williams v. Duggan, 172 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); Tri-County Produce Distributors, Inc. v. Northeast Production Credit Ass'n, 160 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963); Bente v. Nelson, 156 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); Kramer v. Landau, 113 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). Nor did the appellants bring themselves within the exception to this principle which arises when there is a “credible explanation by the affiant as to the reason for the discr…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ellison v. Johnson Anderson, 74 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1954)
- Kramer v. Landau, 113 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)