Diamond v. Diamond

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Diamond v. Diamond

536 So. 2d 1092, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2500, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4963, 1988 WL 120930

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 16, 1988

DocketNo. 87-3075

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 536 So. 2d 1092 (Diamond v. Diamond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Diamond v. Diamond, 536 So. 2d 1092, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2500, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4963, 1988 WL 120930 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

When a sham pleading is filed in a civil case, under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.150(b), the rule provides that any appropriate motion to strike “shall be verified.” The instant motion was never verified nor was it accompanied by an affidavit.

We, therefore, on purely technical grounds, have no alternative but to reverse the order granting the motion. This opinion is not rendered on the merits nor do we decide whether leave to amend the pleadings should have been permitted.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

LETTS, DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI