AIRLIFT INTERNATIONAL, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
LINEE AEREE ITALIANE, S. P. A., A/K/A ALITALIA AIRLINES, 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.
Airlift International appeals a replevin judgment where the trial court allowed the plaintiff to amend its complaint to increase the claimed property value after all evidence was presented and immediately before jury instructions. The court reversed, holding that allowing such a late amendment prejudiced the defendant's ability to present a defense on the new valuation.
The trial court abused its discretion in granting the amendment. Although trial courts have broad discretion to allow amendments under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, this discretion cannot be exercised so as to abridge the rights of the opposing party. Allowing the amendment at such a late stage—after all evidence was presented and without giving the defendant an opportunity to offer a case in opposition—was fatally defective.
“that discretion must be exercised so as not to abridge the rights of the opposing party. It is manifest that the further the case progresses, the more likely the granting of such amendment is inclined to prejudice the opponent.”
Establishes the fundamental constraint on trial court discretion to allow amendments—they cannot unfairly prejudice the opposing party, especially late in the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLinee Aeree Italiane (Alitalia) filed a replevin action claiming the property's true value was $20,000, supported by a $40,000 replevin bond. After al…
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 Prejudice To Opposing Party cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellee, Linee Aeree Italiane, S. p. A., was plaintiff in an action sounding in re-plevin. The complaint alleged that the true value of the property which was the subject matter of the suit was $20,000.00. The replevin bond required of plaintiff by *110§ 78.07, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., which bond must be in an amount at least double the value of the property, had a face value of $40,-000.00. At the conference on requested jury instructions, after all evidence had been presented, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that it be allowed to amend the ad damnum clause of the complaint to allege a value “in excess of $20,000.00.” This motion was granted, and the case went to the jury who returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $45,000.00. Trial court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff based upon the verdict, whereupon, defendant appeals.
Appellant’s basic contention is ‘.hat the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the amendment. We agree. It is settled under Rule 1.190, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., that the trial court has a broad, though not unlimited discretion in allowing amendments of pleadings. On appeal, appellant has the burden of showing an abuse of that discretion. McSwiggan v. Edson, Fla.1966, 186 So.2d 13. But, that discretion must be exercised so as not to abridge the rights of the opposing party. It is manifest that the further the case progresses, the more likely the granting of such amendment is inclined to prejudice the opponent. United States v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 890; Houston Texas Gas & Oil Corporation v. Hoeffner, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 38; Tucker v. Daugherty, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 230. Though the amendment in question may have been proper at one time, the defendant-appellant was given no opportunity to offer a case in opposition. This fact renders the amendment fatally defective. Seltzer v. Grine, Fla.1955, 79 So.2d 688. Quoting from the case of Younglove v. Knox, 44 Fla. 743, 746, 33 So. 427 (1902):
“ * * * Both the affidavit and declaration had apprised them that plaintiff did not intend to claim a greater valuation of the property sued for than $1,500. Section 1712 of the Revised Statutes required plaintiff to state the true value of the property in his affidavit, and he placed it at $1,500. The defendants may well have relied on this statement, repeated in the declaration, as showing that a greater valuation would not be claimed, and, on that assumption, have neglected to produce evidence as to value which they might have obtained. The judgment should be so modified as to limit the recovery to the amount claimed.” (Citations omitted.)
Therefore, on the basis of the foregoing, the judgment appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to enter an order granting judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the amount originally claimed, that is, $20,000.00.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nazario Alvarez v. DeAGUIRRE, 395 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ty in permitting amendments decreases as the action progresses and as the number of amended pleading increases.” Trawick’s Florida Practice and Procedure § 14-3 at 210 (1980 Edition). See Airlift International, Inc. v. Linee Aeree Italiane S. p. A,, 212 So. 2d 109 (Fla.3d DCA 1968). Additionally, in Florida Gas v. Arida Air Conditioning Company, 260 So. 2d 220, 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972), it was stated that: “ ‘three strikes are out’ in a baseball game; [plaintiff] has been at bat four times. Under the most libe…
-
Goldberg v. Goldberg, 309 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…titioner’s application for leave to amend was not untimely, and it was made at a stage of the action which would have afforded the respondents opportunity to plead defensively thereto. Cf. Airlift Inter., Inc. v. Linee Aeree Italiane, Fla. App.1968, 212 So. 2d 109. Nor does it appear otherwise that the rights of the respondents would have been prejudiced by allowance of the amendment. See Rule 1.-190(a) and (e) F.R.C.P. On the contrary, the rights of the petitioner with respect to establishing her interest an…
-
Digiacomo v. Odel Jorge Mosquera, 322 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…s in favor of granting leave to amend,” see Off Lease Only, Inc. v. LeJeune Auto Wholesale, Inc., 187 So. 3d 868, 871 n. 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), such liberality is not unbridled. Airlift Intern., Inc. v. Linee Aeree ---PAGE 8--- Italiane, S.p.A., 212 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). A court may exercise its discretion to deny such leave to amend where “it clearly appears that allowing the amendment would prejudice the opposing party.” Dieudonne v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 994 So. 2d 505, 507 (Fla. 3d…
Authorities Cited
- Houston Tex. GAS & OIL Corp. v. Hoeffner, 132 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- B. M. and R. L. Tucker v. Daugherty, 122 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- United States v. State of Fla. & Cnty. of Dade, 179 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- McSWIGGAN v. Murray Edson, 186 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1966)
- Younglove v. Knox, 44 Fla. 743 (Fla. 1902)
- Seltzer v. Grine, 79 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1955)