From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morgan v. Thomson

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Mar 16, 1983
427 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

Summary

recognizing that rule 1.370"provides a liberal standard for the trial court to grant relief by permitting withdrawal or amendment" but holding that "a motion must be made for relief from the admissions automatically resulting from a failure to timely answer a request for admissions" even where the party later files a pleading or affidavit conflicting with the admissions

Summary of this case from Sudman v. O'Brien

Opinion

No. 82-512.

March 16, 1983.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, St. Johns County, Richard O. Watson, J.

Richard E. Gentry, St. Augustine, for appellant.

John D. Bailey, Jr., of Upchurch, Bailey Upchurch, P.A., St. Augustine, for appellee.


Appellee, defendant below, filed a request for admissions. Appellant failed to timely answer and appellee moved for summary judgment. Thereafter, without making any motion to permit withdrawal or amendment of the admissions resulting from the failure to timely answer the request, appellant filed a tardy answer and an affidavit opposing the motion for summary judgment. The affidavit conflicted with the admissions. At the hearing on the motion for summary judgment appellant argued, and on appeal again argues, that the trial court should disregard the admissions and appellant's failure to move for relief, consider the late answer and the conflicting affidavit and deny the summary judgment. The trial court relied on the admissions and entered summary judgment. We affirm.

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.370 is clear. Unless a timely answer or objection is filed, the requested matter is conclusively admitted and established and remains so unless and until "the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment" or otherwise grants relief from the effect of the failure to answer.

The rule provides a liberal standard for the trial court to grant relief by permitting withdrawal or amendment and this court has liberally construed that provision. See Melody Tours, Inc. v. Granville Market Newsletter, Inc., 413 So.2d 450 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). However, a motion must be made for relief from the admissions automatically resulting from a failure to timely answer a request for admissions. In this regard a trial judge cannot err until he rules on a proper motion for relief. No motion, no relief, no error.

AFFIRMED.

COBB, J., and JOHNSON, CLARENCE T., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.


Summaries of

Morgan v. Thomson

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Mar 16, 1983
427 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

recognizing that rule 1.370"provides a liberal standard for the trial court to grant relief by permitting withdrawal or amendment" but holding that "a motion must be made for relief from the admissions automatically resulting from a failure to timely answer a request for admissions" even where the party later files a pleading or affidavit conflicting with the admissions

Summary of this case from Sudman v. O'Brien

In Morgan, the court held that, where no motion was made for relief from admissions automatically resulting from the appellant's failure to timely answer a request for admissions, the trial court properly relied on the admissions in entering summary judgment for the appellee, despite the contention that, where the appellant filed a tardy answer and an affidavit opposing the motion, the trial court should disregard the admissions and the failure to move for relief and should consider the late answer and conflicting affidavit to deny summary judgment.

Summary of this case from Singer v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

In Morgan our companion court held the defaulting party could not belatedly file responses without a motion for leave to do so, the absence of which was fatal.

Summary of this case from Wood v. Fortune Ins. Co.
Case details for

Morgan v. Thomson

Case Details

Full title:CAROLINE MORGAN, APPELLANT, v. LILLIAN C. THOMSON, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Mar 16, 1983

Citations

427 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

Citing Cases

Wood v. Fortune Ins. Co.

We affirm. There is a parallel between this case and Morgan v. Thomson, 427 So.2d 1134 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983),…

West v. West

We have, however, also held that a motion under this rule is absolutely necessary and if no motion is filed…