| jeordiara |
Ngày: Thứ bảy, 27-07-2013, 09:34 | Message # 1 |
|
Nhóm: Tham dự viên
Bài viết:
|
At any time in furtherance of justice, upon such terms as may be just, the court may permit any process, proceeding, pleading, or record to be amended . . . While it is generally true that amendments are viewed favorably so as to assure the trial of cases on their merits, amendments are not allowed where they would "change the issue, introduce new issues, or materially vary the grounds of relief." International Patrol and Detective Agency Company, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 396 So.2d 774, 776 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (citations omitted), aff'd on other grounds , 419 So.2d 323 (Fla. 1982). This rule is especially applicable where the amendment is sought shortly before trial, since the liberality to be exercised in granting amendments diminishes as a case progresses to trial. Brown v. Montgomery Ward, 252 So.2d 817, 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Allett v. Hill, 422 So.2d 1047, 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Price v. Morgan, 436 So.2d 1116, 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Here, Title & Trust sought leave to amend two weeks prior to trial, in order to raise a new issue, usury. As a practical matter, prejudice to Title and Trust does not clearly appear, since Title & Trust was allowed, over objection, to introduce testimony concerning the usurious nature of the Parkers' loan transaction and the Parkers failed to appeal this evidentiary ruling to this court. Moreover, even were the Parkers' objection properly before this court, we would not be inclined to overrule the trial judge, as a court may, on its own motion, take notice of illegal contracts coming before it Citizens 468 So. 2d 523 Bank & Trust Co. v. Mabry, 102 Fla. 1084, 136 So. 714, 717 (1931), citing Escambia Land & Manufacturing Co. v. Ferry Pass Inspectors' & Shippers Ass'n., 59 Fla. 239, 52 So. 715 (1910). Nevertheless, the proffered amendment would have effected at least a technical change in the issues to be tried, since the loan itself was made and was payable in California, so that we cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the amendment. Chitty & Company v. Preston H. Haskell Company, 423 So.2d 460, 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). social security disability depression <a href="http://ssdihand.net/">social security disability eligibility</a> social security administration disability application
applying for social security disability <a href=http://ssdihand.net/>file for social security disability</a> social security disability claims
social security attorney <a href="http://ssdihand.net/">file for social security disability</a> social security disability claims
http://ssdihand.net/ |
| |
| |
