Muro v. Interstate Title Corp.
575 So. 2d 328, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1646, 1991 WL 27650
Opinion
While we agree with appellee’s argument upon the first two issues, we agree with appellants’ third argument and hold it was error to disallow an amended complaint. See Dryden Waterproofing, Inc. v. Bogard, 488 So.2d 672, 673 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Sarasota Commercial Refrigeration & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Schooley, 381 So.2d 1141, 1144 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Accordingly, we reverse the partial final judgment and remand with direction to allow the filing of an amended complaint.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Muro v. Interstate Title Corp., 575 So. 2d 328, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1646, 1991 WL 27650 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).
575 So. 2d 328 (Muro v. Interstate Title Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Dryden Waterproofing, Inc. v. Bogard
488 So. 2d 672 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Sarasota Commercial Refrigeration v. Schooley
381 So. 2d 1141 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)