TOWN OF MICANOPY, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN L. CONNELL 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.
The Town of Micanopy appealed the dismissal of its complaint seeking declaratory judgment over rights-of-way through appellees' property. While the trial court correctly found the original complaint failed to state a cause of action, the appellate court reversed because the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing without leave to amend, contrary to the liberal amendment policy of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
The trial court abused its discretion by dismissing with prejudice without allowing amendment. Under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.190, leave to amend pleadings shall be freely given when justice requires, and doubts should be resolved in favor of allowing amendments unless it is clear a plaintiff cannot state a cause of action.
[1] Leave to amend a pleading shall be freely given when justice so requires, generally allowing a plaintiff at least one attempt to state a cause of action.
[2] Doubts should be resolved in favor of allowing amendments to pleadings unless it appears that the privilege to amend will be abused.
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“Rule 1.190, F.R.C.P., provides that leave to amend a pleading shall be freely given when justice so requires.”
Establishes the foundational rule requiring liberal amendment policy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Town of Micanopy claimed ownership of certain rights-of-way through property owned by Connell et al., as indicated on a recorded plat in Alachua C…
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
McCORD, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order dismiss-appellant s complaint with prejudice.
By its complaint, appellant alleged it was the owner of certain rights-of-way through appellees’ property “as indicated on” a certain plat which had been recorded in the public records of Alachua County, the map being attached to the complaint. Appellant sought a declaratory judgment. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss and an answer and appellant filed a motion to strike portions of the answer and the motion to dismiss. The trial court entered its order granting the motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
There is no question but that the trial judge’s dismissal of the complaint was correct as it wholly fails to state a cause of action. The only issue here is whether or not the dismissal should have been with leave to amend.
In his order of dismissal, the trial judge found that:
“It is undisputed that those streets had never been opened and that they have been under fence and used as a cow pasture for many years and have never been opened for public use. In other words, they exist only upon the map.”
Appellant’s counsel contends that at the hearing on the motion to dismiss, he stated to the court that he could produce evidence that the streets had been opened and that the State of Florida Archives in St. Augustine may have documents showing dedication. He filed his affidavit in support of a “Motion for Rehearing and to Amend the Complaint” asserting that he did make such statements to the court at the hearing. We make no finding or ruling whether or not the apparently disputed statements were made at the hearing on the motion to dismiss. There is no reporter’s transcript of the hearing in the appeal record and the hearing was probably not reported. A de termination of this question is not essential to the ruling which we here make, however. Rule 1.190, F.R.C.P., provides that leave to amend a pleading shall be freely given when justice so requires. This is generally interpreted to allow a plaintiff to at least amend his complaint one time in an attempt to state a cause of action unless, of course, it is clear that a plaintiff will not be able to state a cause of action. As this court stated in Brown v. Montgomery Ward and Company, Fla.App.(1st), 252 So. 2d 817, doubts should be resolved in favor of allowing amendments unless and until it appears that the privilege to amend will be abused. In Brown this court further said:
“The court may, in its discretion, deny any party the right to amend his pleadings if the proposed amendments will change or introduce new issues or materially vary the grounds for relief, or where the filing of such pleadings will delay the suit by necessarily requiring a continuance under circumstances which would be unduly prejudicial to the opposing party. . . .”
It does not appear that any of these circumstances exist in the case sub judice.
In Weich v. Cook, Fla.App.(1st), 250 So. 2d 281, this court quoted from its previous opinion in Richards v. West, Fla.App.(1st), 110 So. 2d 698, 701 as follows:
“The advent of modern rules of procedure has brought with it the policy of allowing litigants to amend pleadings freely in order that causes may be tried on their merits. Granting leave to amend rests of course, in the sound discretion of the trial court; but doubts should be resolved in favor of allowing amendment unless and until it appears that the privilege to amend will be abused.”
Appellees argue that the order dismissing the complaint should be treated as a judgment on the pleadings, but appellees’ motion was to dismiss the complaint and we find no authority under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure for treating an order granting a motion to dismiss a complaint as a judgment on the pleadings nor has any such authority been cited by appel-lees.
While the trial court was correct in its dismissal of the complaint, it was an abuse of discretion not to allow appellant to amend.
Reversed with directions to enter an order allowing appellant a reasonable time to file an amended complaint.
SPECTOR, Acting C. J., and BOYER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Hamide v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 548 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…udice. See Crews v. Ellis, 531 So. 2d 1372, 1375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Thompson v. McNeil Company, Inc., 464 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Affordable Homes, Inc. v. Devil’s Run, Ltd., 408 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Town of Micanopy v. Connell, 304 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Countryside Christian Center, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, 542 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Albrecht v. Board of Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund, 481 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Dingess v. Florida Aircraft Sales & Lea…
-
Les Robinson v. Town OF Palm Beach Shores, 388 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…e to amend. Appellee poses a third question: that is, whether appellant waived any right to appeal the refusal to grant leave to amend by failing to file a motion for rehearing and to amend the complaint, as suggested by Town of Micanopy v. Connell, 304 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). We answer appellant’s first question affirmatively. The validity of a municipal ordinance may be tested in an action for declaratory relief. The statute itself so provides. § 86.021 Fla.Stat. (1979). And see Keay v. City of Co…
-
Cary Michael Lambrix v. Dugger, 547 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…a plaintiff to amend his complaint at least one time in an attempt to state a cause of action unless it is clear that a plaintiff cannot in good faith allege a set of circumstances sufficient to state a cause of action. Town of Micanopy v. Connell, 304 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). Thus it was error to dismiss this complaint with prejudice. Sidener v. Jones, 455 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Accordingly that portion of the order appealed from as to defendant McQueen is reversed and remanded to the trial…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 252 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Richards v. West, 110 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Weich v. Cook, 250 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)