Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

427 So. 2d 1134

Docket No. 82-512.

Morgan v. Thomson

Caroline MORGAN, Appellant, v. Lillian C. THOMSON, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1983-03-16

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Effect of Admission. Any matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission. Subject to rule 1.200 governing amendment of a pretrial order, the court may permit withdrawal or amendment when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved by it and the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice that party in maintaining an action or defense on the merits. Any admission made by a party under this rule is for the purpose of the pending action only and is not an admission for any other purpose nor may it be used against that party in any other proceeding.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 785 So. 2d 508 - Ruiz v. De Varona

Relies on 413 So. 2d 450 - Melody Tours, Inc. v. GRANVILLE MKT. LETTER

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-03-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 2017

7 state decisions

301983199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Richard E. Gentry, St. Augustine, for appellant.

¶2John D. Bailey, Jr., of Upchurch, Bailey & Upchurch, P.A., St. Augustine, for appellee.

¶3COWART, Judge.

¶4Appellee, 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.

¶5Florida 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.

¶6The rule provides a liberal standard for the trial court to grant relief by permitting withdrawal or amendment and this *1135 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.

¶7AFFIRMED.

¶8COBB, J., and JOHNSON, CLARENCE T., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.

/427/so2d/1134 · .json · Public domain