Talbert v. Talbert

364 So. 2d 541, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16712
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 22, 1978
DocketNo. 77-2125
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 364 So. 2d 541 (Talbert v. Talbert) 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
Talbert v. Talbert, 364 So. 2d 541, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16712 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

DOWNEY, Chief Judge.

Appellant seeks reversal of an order of the trial court denying appellant’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

Suit was initially filed in May. Appellant filed an answer in June, generally denying the allegation of the complaint, and the cause was set for trial in August. Appellant obtained a continuance of that trial date until September. In August appellant obtained another continuance and the cause was reset for trial in October. Eight days before the case was due for trial appellant sought to amend her answer and file a counterclaim so as to plead a special equity in all of appellee’s property and to seek alimony and child support — none of which had been sought by her original pleadings. The trial court declined to allow the amend[542]*542ment and appellant seeks review of that order.

At first blush, it would seem the order appealed from is a routine exercise of the chancellor’s discretion. However, a closer examination of the record discloses that the two continuances were made necessary because appellee’s counsel was not available to attend the proceedings noticed. In addition, the relief sought through the proposed amended pleadings1 was of such importance to the wife and minor children that justice required the amendments be allowed.

We are fully aware of and agree with the rule which provides that liberality in allowing amendments diminishes as the case progresses. We are also most reluctant to reverse an exercise of discretion such as we have here. However, viewing this case in its totality, we feel the chancellor did abuse his discretion and accordingly we reverse the order appealed from and remand the cause with directions to allow the proposed amendments and for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED with directions.

ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

McKenzie v. McKenzie
648 So. 2d 326 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
364 So. 2d 541, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/talbert-v-talbert-fladistctapp-1978.