Arfor-Brynfield, Inc. v. Huntsville Mall Associates
Citation | 479 So.2d 1146 |
Decision Date | 30 August 1985 |
Docket Number | ARFOR-BRYNFIEL,INC |
Parties | , a/k/a Germano's Gallery v. HUNTSVILLE MALL ASSOCIATES, a partnership. 84-379. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
L. Tennent Lee III of Cleary, Lee, Morris, Evans & Rowe, Huntsville, for appellant. 1
Frank K. Noojin, Jr. and Michael I. Spearing of Watts, Salmon, Roberts, Manning & Noojin, Huntsville, for appellee.
The tenant appeals from the final judgment set out below in an unlawful detainer action brought by the owner:
The Court finds that the defenses of waiver and estoppel are not made issues in the case by the Court's Pre-Trial Order and that the Plaintiff would be prejudiced if the Defendant were allowed at this point in time to inject the issues of waiver and estoppel into the case;
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred to reversal in disallowing the amendment to the tenant's answer offered for the first time on the day the case was set for trial, some seven months after a pre-trial conference was held and a pre-trial order was entered which stated that the tenant's defense was a general denial and that amendments would be allowed only to meet proof at trial of which the parties were presently unaware. The order setting the pre-trial conference cautioned:
Three and one-half months before the case was set for trial, the owner filed the following motion in limine, specifically objecting to any reference to waiver or estoppel:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Government Street Lumber Co., Inc. v. AmSouth Bank, N.A.
...to the complaint under the facts hereinbefore set out. See Robinson v. Kierce, 513 So.2d 1005 (Ala.1987); Arfor-Brynfield, Inc. v. Huntsville Mall Associates, 479 So.2d 1146 (Ala.1985); Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Sullen, 413 So.2d 1106 (Ala.1982); Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Casualty Insu......
-
Super Valu Stores, Inc. v. Peterson
...for summary judgment. Trial judges have discretion to allow or refuse amendments to pre-trial orders. Arfor-Brynfield, Inc. v. Huntsville Mall Associates, 479 So.2d 1146 (Ala.1985). The trial court should not allow amendments to pre-trial orders where the trial will be unduly delayed or the......
-
Fitzpatrick v. Hoehn, 1160348
...after the circuit court's deadline imposed in its scheduling order issued pursuant to Rule 16(b). In Arfor–Brynfield, Inc. v. Huntsville Mall Associates, 479 So.2d 1146, 1149–50 (Ala. 1985), this Court set forth the relevant principles concerning a party's attempt to amend its pleadings aft......
-
Horton v. Shelby Medical Center
...of trial, it refuses an amendment that the proponent has had ample opportunity to bring forth sooner. See Arfor-Brynfield, Inc. v. Huntsville Mall Assocs., 479 So.2d 1146 (Ala.1985); see also Debuys v. Jefferson County, 511 So.2d 196 In Johnson v. McMurray, 461 So.2d 775 (Ala.1984), this Co......