Precision Constructors, Inc. v. Valtec Construction Corp.
Opinion
Precision Constructors, Inc., the defendant below, appeals from a final judgment in favor of Valtec Construction Corp., the plaintiff below, following a bench trial.
We reverse as the case was tried before it was “at issue,” in contravention of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440. The original notice for trial was no longer viable after the plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint, thereby reopening the pleadings. See Nystrom v. Nystrom, 105 So.2d 605, 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958) (noting that if the defendant’s motion to amend her answer had been granted, “then the pleadings would be reopened and the cause would really be no longer at issue.”).1 An action is not “at issue” until the pleadings are closed. See id.; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(a). Here, the case was not at issue until 20 days after the defendant filed its answer to the amended complaint.2 See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(a). By then, however, the case had already been tried.
Failure to adhere strictly to the mandates of Rule 1.440 is reversible error.3 See Bennett v. Continental Chemicals, Inc., 492 So.2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Accordingly, the judgment is vacated and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
825 So. 2d 1062 (Precision Constructors, Inc. v. Valtec Construction Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.