Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

595 So. 2d 308

Docket No. 91-2534.

Balcar v. Ramos

Frank A. BALCAR, Appellant, v. Anthony E. RAMOS, d/b/a Anthony E. Ramos, attorney at law, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 25, 1992.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1992-03-25

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 2005

5 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[a] dismissal with prejudice should not be ordered without giving the party offering the defective pleading an opportunity to amend unless it is clear that the pleading cannot be amended so as to state a cause of action.” Balcar v. Ramos, 595 So.2d 308, 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (quoting Delia & Wilson, Inc. v. Wilson, 448 So.2d 621, 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)). That issue was not raised on appeal, and had it been,”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including RHS Corp. v. City of Boynton Beach, 901 So. 2d 810 - Bryant v. State

Relies on In re Trust Agreement of Kelly · Brown v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1992-03-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Frank A. Balcar, pro se.

¶2Anthony E. Ramos of the Law Offices of Anthony E. Ramos, Lake Worth, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Frank A. Balcar, pro se appellant, brings this timely appeal of the trial court's order granting with prejudice Anthony E. Ramos's motion to dismiss. We reverse the trial court's decision.

¶5In his initial complaint, Balcar raised claims of breach of contract, defamation, conspiracy, and fraud. Ramos filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint was replete with legal and technical difficulties. The trial court granted the motion with prejudice.

¶6"A dismissal with prejudice should not be ordered without giving the party offering the defective pleading an opportunity to amend unless it is clear that the pleading cannot be amended so as to state a cause of action." Delia & Wilson, Inc. v. Wilson,448 So.2d 621, 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); accord Kovach v. McLellan,564 So.2d 274, 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Because we are unable to determine with certainty that Balcar cannot amend his initial complaint to state a cause of action, we reverse the trial court. On remand, the trial court shall permit Balcar to file an amended complaint.

¶7REVERSED AND REMANDED.

¶8DELL, GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.

/595/so2d/308 · .json · Public domain