DONALD C. PLETTS, APPELLANT,
v.
GILBERT O. PLETTS, 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 Pletts appealed the dismissal of his complaint for specific performance of a contract extension. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding that the complaint was procedurally deficient because it failed to attach or adequately describe the contract extension at issue and because appellant never requested permission to amend the complaint.
The dismissal was proper. The complaint was insufficient because it did not attach a copy of the contract extension or adequately set forth its terms. Additionally, the appellant's argument that he should have been allowed to amend came too late, as he never requested permission to file an amended complaint or actually tendered one to the court.
[1] A complaint for specific performance is insufficient if it fails to attach a copy of the contract sued upon or adequately set forth its terms.
[2] A party seeking to amend a complaint must typically request permission to file an amended complaint or tender one to the court.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It is obvious from a reading of the complaint that the appellant carefully refrained from a statement as to whether the extension was written or oral.”
Establishes that the complaint was deliberately ambiguous regarding a critical element of the alleged contract.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant filed a complaint for specific performance based on an extension of a contract. The complaint did not attach the contract extension as an ex…
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 Amended Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal by the plaintiff urges error because of the trial judge’s dismissal of a complaint for specific performance and, in addition, that the court should have allowed the filing of an amended complaint. Appellant urges that he followed the form appendaged to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and set forth as “Form 1.941.” An examination of the complaint reveals that appellant is mistaken in this contention. Although the form calls for an action on a contract which was attached as an exhibit, appellant sued upon an extension of a contract and the extension was not attached. It is obvious from a reading of the complaint that the appellant carefully refrained from a statement as to whether the extension was written or oral.
Counsel for the appellant filed a memorandum of law with the trial court. His position was that unless the complaint showed on its face that the contract was oral, it was not subject to a motion to dismiss upon the basis that the action was barred by the Statute of Frauds. This position is supported by Martin v. Highway Equipment Supply Company, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So.2d 246. The complaint was, however, insufficient in that it did not have attached a copy of the entire contract sued upon nor did it set forth the terms of the contract adequately. See Patton v. Carlson, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 793. After the court ruled, a petition for rehearing was filed but there was never a petition or an offer to file an amended complaint or to attach the extension as an exhibit.
It is apparent to this court that there was reluctance on the part of appellant’s counsel to reach the controlling issue. He relies for reversal upon a “record error” rather than a prejudicial error. His argument that he was not allowed to amend his complaint now comes too late since it is apparent that he not only failed to tender an amended complaint but he failed to request permission to file one.
*298It has often been stated that it is not the purpose of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure to set forth the rules for a game, but that the purpose is to provide a vehicle for the speedy disposition of cases on the basis of the merits. Criado v. Milgram, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 596. We think that appellant has failed to demonstrate error.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dade Cnty. Police Benevolent Ass'n, Inc. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 452 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…trial court does not err in failing to award a plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint when, as here, the record does not reveal a request for such an amendment. Nesbitt v. City of Miami, 314 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Pletts v. Pletts, 258 So. 2d 297 (Fla.3d DCA 1972). The failure of the plaintiffs to plead a proper class action as required by Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.220(c)(2)(C), (D)(iii) is particularly fatal in this case. There exists, we think, serious doubt as to whether these individual plaintiff…
-
Engineered Disposal Sys. Corp. v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 412 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…4 So. 2d 487 (Fla.1979); University Plaza Shopping Center, Inc. v. Stewart, 272 So. 2d 507 (Fla.1973); Allen v. Town of Largo, 39 So. 2d 549 (Fla.1949); Jemco, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 400 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Pletts v. Pletts, 258 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).…
Authorities Cited
- Martin v. Hwy. Equip. Supply Co., Inc., 172 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Patton v. Carlson, 132 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Criado v. Milgram, 237 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)