CURRY FORD APARTMENTS, INC., AND FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
BLACKTON, INC., 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.
Curry Ford Apartments and Federal Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment against them, arguing the trial court erred in deeming their discovery responses admitted based on technical defects in the jurat clause. The appellate court reversed, holding that discovery rules should be liberally construed to permit amendment of procedurally defective responses when the defect is inadvertent.
The appellate court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to amend. Discovery rules should be liberally interpreted to promote the discovery of truth and substantial justice over mere technical defects. Where a party alleges inadvertent and accidental omission in a jurat, and the opposing party does not controvert this allegation, the motion to amend should be granted.
[1] A trial court errs in denying a motion to amend a jurat clause in responses to requests for admissions when the defect is minor and the amendment is sought to cure an ina…
[2] Discovery rules should be liberally interpreted to promote the ascertainment of truth and substantial justice over technicalities.
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“The rules of discovery should be liberally interpreted to comport with the spirit of their intended function which is to arrive at the truth and to accord substantial justice over mere technical contentions.”
Establishes the governing principle that discovery rules should be broadly construed to serve their underlying purpose rather than to impose technical barriers.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants Curry Ford Apartments, Inc. and Federal Insurance Company submitted responses to plaintiff Blackton, Inc.'s requests for admissions. The re…
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.
Appellants-defendants, Curry Ford Apartments, Inc., and Federal Insurance Company, appeal a summary judgment rendered in favor of appellee-plaintiff, Black-ton, Inc. In entering summary judgment the trial court denied defendants’ motion to amend the jurat clause in their answers to plaintiff’s requests for admissions. The trial court determined defendants’ answers to these admissions to be “unverified” and presumably deemed as admitted matters which the defendants had specifically denied (Rule 1.370, F.R.C.P. 30 F.S.A.). It appears the trial court’s conclusion that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact was predicated in part upon the matters deemed admitted in the “unverified” answers.
We are of the opinion that the trial court erred in denying defendants’ motion to amend their responses to cure the defective jurat. The nature of the defect was that although the defendants’ responses reflected that they were being made “under oath”, the jurat or acknowledgment before a notary, omitted references to the fact that affiant was “first duly sworn” before executing such acknowledgment. The defendants alleged in their motion to amend that this omission in the jurat was caused inadvertently, accidentally and without deliberate intention. These allegations were uncontroverted by plaintiff. The rules of discovery should be liberally interpreted to comport with the spirit of their intended function which is to arrive at the truth and to accord substantial justice over mere technical contentions. Cabot v. Clearwater Construction Company, Fla. 1956, 89 So.2d 662; Woods v. Stewart, 5 Cir. 1948, 171 F.2d 544; Hartley & Parker, Inc. v. Florida Beverage Corporation, 5 Cir. 1965, 348 F.2d 161; see also Bente v. Nelson, Fla.App. 1963, 156 So.2d 17; Southern Railway *694Company v. Wood, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 614.
We are of the opinion therefore that the defendants’ motion to amend their answers to plaintiff’s requests for admissions should be granted and such answers should be considered in determining whether the responses therein reflect the existence of any genuine issue as to any material fact in the case sub judice. In this regard see Parkhurst v. Noble, Fla.App.1970, 238 So.2d 691; Baskin v. Griffith, Fla.App.1961, 127 So.2d 467; Jacobi v. Claude Nolan, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 783; Strode v. Southern Steel Company, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 690; Card v. Commercial Bank at Daytona Beach, Fla.App. 1960, 119 So.2d 404.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed with directions to the trial court to take such further proceedings as are consistent with this opinion.
CROSS, C. J., and REED, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
OLD Equity Life Ins. Co. v. Suggs, 263 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)…uch action “operated more in the nature of a penalty upon the defendant than as an end to the orderly and expedient trial of the material issues”. Or as stated by the 4th District Court in Curry Ford Apartments, Inc. v. Blackton, Inc., Fla.App.1971, 249 So. 2d 693: “The rules of discovery should be liberally interpreted to comport with the spirit of their intended function which is to arrive at the truth and to accord substantial justice over mere technical contentions.” With commendable candor, counsel for…
-
Davison v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Orlando, 413 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…emand this matter for a new trial after Davison is permitted to amend his answer to the Request for Admissions. In Old Equity Life Insurance Company v. Suggs, 263 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), quoting Curry Ford Apartments, Inc. v. Blackton, Inc., 249 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), it was said: The Rules of discovery should be liberally interpreted to comport with the spirit of their intended function which is to arrive at the truth and to accord substantial justice over mere technical contentions. See a…
-
Lum's, Inc. v. Farish, 251 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…vacating the summary final judgment which was entered as a result of inadvertence and in failing to permit Lum’s to file properly executed answers to the request for admissions. See Curry Ford Apartments, Inc. v. Blackton, Inc. et al., Fla.App.1971, 249 So. 2d 693; Southern Railway Company v. Wood, Fla.App.1965, 171 So. 2d 614; Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 812; Hartley & Parker, Inc. v. Florida Beverage Corporation, 348 F. 2d 161 (5th Cir. 1965); and Woods v. Stewart, 171 F. 2d 544 (5th Cir. 1948); Cf. Sieb’s Hat…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Cabot v. Clearwater Constr. Co., 89 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 1956)
- Norris F. Baskin and Ola G. Baskin v. Griffith, 127 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Derald J. Jacobi and Mary Charett v. Claude Nolan, Inc., 122 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- S. Ry. Co. v. Wood, 171 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Card v. Commercial Bank AT Daytona Beach, 119 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Hartley & Parker, Inc. v. Fla. Bev. Corp. & Am. Distilling Co., 348 F.2d 161 (5th Cir. 1965)
- Parkhurst v. Lyn C. Noble & Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 238 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Strode v. S. Steel Constr. Co., Inc., 188 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Woods v. Stewart, 171 F.2d 544 (5th Cir. 1948)
- Bente v. Nelson, 156 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)