Sorenson v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon
261 So. 3d 660 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court abuses its discretion when it denies a motion to amend a pleading solely based on the length of time a case has been pending, without making specific findings that the amendment would cause prejudice, constitutes an abuse of the privilege to amend, or would be futile.
Facts:
- Scott L. Sorenson had a mortgage note that was originally held by a lender other than The Bank of New York Mellon (the Bank).
- Sorenson allegedly defaulted on his mortgage payments on January 1, 2009.
- The Bank initially claimed to be the owner of the note but provided a copy that bore no endorsements transferring ownership to it.
- Months after filing the lawsuit, the Bank produced a different copy of the same note, which now included an undated, blank endorsement.
- Sorenson came to believe that the endorsement was fraudulently created and backdated by the Bank after the lawsuit had already begun.
Procedural Posture:
- On October 9, 2009, The Bank of New York Mellon sued Scott L. Sorenson in a Florida trial court for mortgage foreclosure.
- The Bank filed an amended complaint in August 2013.
- In May 2015, Sorenson moved to amend his answer and add a counterclaim for fraud; the trial court denied the motion.
- The first trial in June 2015 ended in a mistrial.
- In August 2015, Sorenson again moved to amend his pleadings, and the trial court again denied the motion.
- The day before a new trial in January 2016, the trial court denied Sorenson's third request to amend his pleadings.
- Following the trial, the court entered a final judgment of foreclosure in favor of the Bank.
- Sorenson (Appellant) appealed the final judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District (an intermediate appellate court), arguing the trial court erred in denying his motions to amend.
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 party's motion to amend their pleadings solely because the case has been pending for a long time, without finding that the amendment would prejudice the opposing party, that the privilege to amend has been abused, or that the amendment would be futile?
Opinions:
Majority - Khouzam, Judge.
Yes. A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion to amend a pleading based only on the age of the case. Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a), leave to amend pleadings must be freely given when justice requires. Public policy strongly favors deciding cases on their merits, and denial is only proper if the amendment would prejudice the opposing party, the privilege to amend has been abused, or the amendment would be futile. Here, the trial court denied Sorenson's repeated requests to add a fraud defense simply because the case was seven years old, without finding any of the three exceptions. While the liberality to amend decreases as trial approaches, Sorenson first sought to amend months before the initial trial, which ended in a mistrial. The court's reliance solely on the passage of time, especially when the Bank's own actions contributed to the delay, was an abuse of discretion.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strong public policy in Florida favoring the liberal amendment of pleadings to ensure cases are decided on their merits rather than procedural technicalities. It serves as a check on trial courts that might deny amendments simply to clear a long-pending case from their docket. The ruling clarifies that the age of a case is not, by itself, a legally sufficient basis for denying an amendment; the court must instead conduct the proper three-part analysis for prejudice, abuse of privilege, or futility. This precedent strengthens a litigant's ability to evolve their legal strategy and introduce new, relevant theories, such as fraud, that may arise from facts discovered during the course of litigation.
