STRICKLAND v. PETERSBURG AUTO AUCTION

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 70-194.

Attorney(S)

Cecil H. Brown of Sutton Brown, Orlando, for appellant. Hugh E. Reams of Kiernan Reams, St. Petersburg, for appellee St. Petersburg Auto Auction.

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a final judgment rendered by the Circuit Court for Orange County, Florida, against Joel C. Strickland, Jr., the appellant and one of the defendants below. The plaintiff sought recovery initially based on a theory of fraudulent misrepresentation against all defendants. At the close of the plaintiff's case in chief, the trial court permitted an amendment to the complaint changing the legal theory to conversion by the defendant Joel C. Strickland, Jr. This procedural development prompted the appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trial court erred in allowing the plaintiff, at the close of its case in chief, to amend its complaint to change the legal theory from fraudulent misrepresentation to conversion.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Douglas Motor Sales, Inc. v. Cy Owens, Inc., 99 Ga. App. 890, 109 S.E.2d 874 (1959)	Illustrates the issue of amending pleadings to change legal theories.	Used as a comparative example regarding amendments changing legal theories.
Rule 1.190(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (1954)	Authorizes trial courts to permit amendments to pleadings to conform to evidence during trial.	Formed the basis for allowing the amendment to the complaint.
Titusville Enterprises, Inc. v. Newkirk, 205 So.2d 16 (Fla. App. 1967)	Supports the authority of trial courts to allow amendments to pleadings conforming to evidence.	Confirmed the trial court’s discretion in permitting the amendment.
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Bracewell, 110 So.2d 482 (Fla. App. 1959)	Supports permissive amendments to pleadings to conform to evidence.	Reinforced the trial court’s broad discretion in allowing amendments.
Hart Properties, Inc. v. Slack, 145 So.2d 285 (Fla. App. 1962), reversed on other grounds, 159 So.2d 236 (Fla. 1963)	Addresses amendments to pleadings and the discretion of trial courts.	Referenced regarding the trial court’s discretion and appellant’s opportunity for continuance.
Warfield v. Drawdy, 41 So.2d 877 (Fla. 1949)	Pre-1954 rule holding amendments changing legal theory were not permitted.	Not controlling post-1954 rules; cited as superseded precedent.
McCullough v. McCullough, 156 Fla. 321, 23 So.2d 139 (1945)	Pre-1954 rule disallowing amendments changing legal theories.	Supplanted by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
Gables Racing Ass'n v. Persky, 131 Fla. 842, 180 So. 24 (1939)	Similar pre-1954 precedent restricting amendments to pleadings.	Not controlling under current procedural rules.
McSwiggan v. Edson, 186 So.2d 13 (Fla. 1966)	Trial court’s discretion in allowing amendments will be reversed only for abuse of discretion.	Standard applied to review the trial court’s allowance of the amendment.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognized that under Rule 1.190(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, trial courts have broad discretion to permit amendments to pleadings at any stage to conform to the evidence, even if such amendments change the legal theory upon which the plaintiff seeks relief. The court noted that earlier Florida cases disallowing such amendments were decided before the adoption of the 1954 Rules and have since been superseded. The court emphasized that the trial court's discretion in this regard is substantial and will only be reversed upon a clear showing of abuse. Here, no such abuse was demonstrated. Moreover, the trial judge offered the appellant an opportunity for a continuance to prepare for the amended complaint, but the appellant declined. Therefore, the court concluded the appellant was not prejudiced by the amendment and affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Holding and Implications

Affirmed.

The court upheld the trial court's decision permitting the plaintiff to amend its complaint to change the legal theory from fraudulent misrepresentation to conversion. The appellant was not prejudiced because he declined the offered continuance. This decision reinforces the broad discretion trial courts have under Rule 1.190(b) to allow amendments to pleadings to conform to the evidence. No new precedent was established beyond reaffirming existing procedural rules and standards for abuse of discretion.

Show full summary ...

JOEL C. STRICKLAND, JR., APPELLANT, v. ST. PETERSBURG AUTO AUCTION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, HAZEL M. STRICKLAND, JOEL C. STRICKLAND, III, AND UNITED WARRANTIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment rendered by the Circuit Court for Orange County, Florida, against Joel C. Strickland, Jr., the appellant here and one of the defendants below.

The issue presented to this court is whether or not the trial court erred in allowing the plaintiff at the close of its case in chief to amend its complaint where such amendment changed the legal theory upon which plaintiff sought to recover from fraudulent misrepresentation by all the defendants to conversion by the defendant Joel C. Strickland, Jr. (Compare Douglas Motor Sales, Inc. v. Cy Owens, Inc., 1959, 99 Ga. App. 890, 109 S.E.2d 874.)

Under Rule 1.190(b), F.R.C.P., 30 F.S.A., trial courts have the authority to permit amendments to pleadings at any time in order to cause them to conform to the evidence by raising issues which have been tried by the express or implied consent of the parties, even though such amendments might change the legal theory on which relief is sought. See 25 Fla.Jur., Pleadings § 110 (1959); 3 Moore's Federal Practice 2d, § 15.13 [1 and 2] 1968; Titusville Enterprises, Inc. v. Newkirk, Fla.App. 1967, 205 So.2d 16; Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Bracewell, Fla.App. 1959, 110 So.2d 482, and Hart Properties, Inc. v. Slack, Fla.App. 1962, 145 So.2d 285 (reversed on different grounds, Fla. 1963, 159 So.2d 236). There is a line of cases which held that amendments to the pleadings would not be permitted if they changed the legal theory upon which the action was initially based. See Warfield v. Drawdy, Fla. 1949, 41 So.2d 877; McCullough v. McCullough, 1945, 156 Fla. 321, 23 So.2d 139; Gables Racing Ass'n v. Persky, 1939, 131 Fla. 842, 180 So. 24. These cases, however, preceded the 1954 Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and have been supplanted by those rules and the amendments thereto.

The trial court has a broad discretion in allowing such amendments under Rule 1.190(b), and will be reversed on appeal only upon a demonstration that its action was an abuse of discretion. McSwiggan v. Edson, Fla. 1966, 186 So.2d 13, 15. In the present case no showing of an abuse of discretion has been made. At the time the plaintiff requested leave to amend its complaint to conform to the evidence, the trial judge offered the appellant an opportunity for a continuance to make such further study and preparation as he might require to meet the amendment, but appellant declined to move for a continuance and indicated his readiness to proceed. We, therefore, conclude that the appellant was not disadvantaged by the trial court's action. Compare Hart Properties, Inc. v. Slack, supra.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

REED and OWEN, JJ., and McCAIN, DAVID L., Associate Judge, concur.