Scott v. Trevett
751 So. 2d 616, 1999 WL 1076784, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15734 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion to amend a complaint, even on the day of trial, when leave to amend should be freely given and there is no evidence of abuse of the amendment privilege, prejudice to the opposing party, or futility of the amendment.
Facts:
- Professional boxer George Scott entered into a written management contract with Gary Trevett.
- Tomas Jansson, another boxer, also signed a similar management contract with Trevett.
- At the time the contracts were executed, Trevett was not licensed as a boxing manager as required by Florida law.
- The contracts allegedly entitled Trevett to a commission of 85%, which exceeded the 33 1/3% maximum allowed by state administrative rules.
- The contracts were allegedly not filed with the state boxing commission within seven days of execution as required by administrative rules.
- Separately from their management contract, Trevett loaned money to Jansson for his expenses.
Procedural Posture:
- George Scott filed a declaratory judgment action against Gary Trevett in a Florida trial court seeking to invalidate their contract.
- Scott filed an amended complaint to add Tomas Jansson and other boxers as co-plaintiffs.
- Trevett filed an answer, affirmative defenses, and a counterclaim against Jansson and others for money lent.
- The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, raising a new legal theory about an excessive commission, which the trial court denied.
- In a joint pretrial stipulation, the plaintiffs raised both the excessive commission theory and another new theory regarding the failure to file the contracts.
- On the first day of trial, the plaintiffs orally moved for leave to amend their complaint to formally include these two new legal theories.
- The trial court denied the motion to amend.
- Following a final judgment against them on the contract claims, Scott and Jansson (appellants) appealed to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal against Trevett (appellee).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by denying a plaintiff's motion to amend their complaint on the first day of trial to add new legal theories when the defendant had prior notice of those theories and would not be prejudiced by the amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Hazouri, J.
Yes, a trial court abuses its discretion by denying a plaintiff's motion to amend their complaint on the first day of trial under these circumstances. Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a), leave to amend a pleading should be freely given when justice so requires. A denial is only appropriate if there is evidence of abuse of the privilege, prejudice to the opposing party, or futility. Here, there was no abuse, as prior amendments were only to add parties. There was no prejudice, as the defendant, Trevett, had notice of the new legal theories months (the commission issue) and weeks (the contract filing issue) before trial, and these legal arguments did not require new discovery or witnesses. Finally, the amendment was not futile as the new claims were legally viable. Therefore, the denial was an abuse of discretion.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the liberal standard for amending pleadings in Florida, prioritizing decisions on the merits over rigid procedural timelines. It clarifies that even a last-minute motion to amend on the day of trial is permissible if the opposing party had prior notice of the substance of the amendment and cannot demonstrate actual prejudice. The ruling signals to trial courts that a blanket refusal to hear motions to amend on the day of trial is improper; a specific finding of abuse, prejudice, or futility is required. This strengthens the position of litigants who discover new legal theories late in the process, provided they can show the other side was not unfairly surprised.
