Riverside Towers, Inc. v. Riverside Development Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Riverside Towers, Inc. v. Riverside Development Corp.

310 So. 2d 44, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 13952

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 14, 1975·No. No. 74-1677·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the briefs of the parties and the record herein we are of the opinion that the trial court’s order permitting the filing of an amended answer and counterclaim seeking attorney’s fees some seven months after final judgment was an [45] abuse of discretion, Aydelott v. Greenheart (Demerara) Inc., 162 So.2d 286 (Fla.App.1964) ; see also Milgen Development, Inc. v. Goodman, 302 So.2d 491 (Fla.App.1974). Accordingly, the order granting defend-antis motion for leave to file an amended answer and counterclaim for attorney’s fees is vacated and set aside.

OWEN, C. J., and WALDEN and MA-GER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the briefs of the parties and the record herein we are of the opinion that the trial court’s order permitting the filing of an amended answer and counterclaim seeking attorney’s fees some seven months after final judgment was an [45] abuse of discretion, Aydelott v. Greenheart (Demerara) Inc., 162 So.2d 286 (Fla.App.1964) ; see also Milgen Development, Inc. v. Goodman, 302 So.2d 491 (Fla.App.1974). Accordingly, the order granting defend-antis motion for leave to file an amended answer and counterclaim for attorney’s fees is vacated and set aside.

OWEN, C. J., and WALDEN and MA-GER, JJ., concur.

Riverside Towers, Inc. v. Riverside Development Corp., 310 So. 2d 44, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 13952 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

310 So. 2d 44 (Riverside Towers, Inc. v. Riverside Development Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related