Arnold v. Arnold Family Ltd. P'ship

• Decision Date: 18 August 2021
• Docket Number: No. 2D20-1902,2D20-1902
• Citation: 326 So.3d 759
• Parties: John Lee ARNOLD, II, individually and as partner of Arnold Family Limited Partnership, Appellant, v. ARNOLD FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

326 So.3d 759

John Lee ARNOLD, II, individually and as partner of Arnold Family Limited Partnership, Appellant,

v.ARNOLD FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellee.

No. 2D20-1902

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 18, 2021

Ernest A. Ricci of Boatman Ricci, Naples, for Appellant.

John I. Silverfield and Ian T. Holmes of Holmes Fraser, PA, Naples, for Appellee.

KELLY, Judge.

In this partnership dispute, John Lee Arnold, II, individually and as partner of the Arnold Family Limited Partnership (AFLP), appeals an order that struck his amended complaint and then dismissed his initial complaint against AFLP without prejudice to file a "new and separate" action. We reverse.

After Arnold filed his initial complaint, AFLP filed a "Motion to Strike Pleadings and Dismiss with Prejudice for Fraud Upon the Court." The motion argued the court should strike the complaint and dismiss the action with prejudice because Arnold had attached a fraudulent document to his complaint to support his claim for breach of the partnership agreement.

Shortly before the hearing on AFLP's motion, Arnold filed an amended complaint. AFLP proceeded to have its motion, which was addressed to the original complaint, heard at a nonevidentiary hearing. In essence, it argued that the amended complaint did not negate the fraud allegedly perpetrated by the initial complaint, that the court should strike the amended complaint, and that the action should be dismissed for fraud on the court. Arnold argued the original complaint was no longer the operative complaint and that AFLP's motion directed to the original complaint was mooted by the amendment.

Ultimately, the trial court declined to find fraud or that Arnold engaged in "a deliberate scheme calculated to subvert the judicial process." However, after striking the amended complaint for having been filed without leave of court, it found that the exhibits attached to the original complaint were "directly contradicted" by the complaint's allegations, and it dismissed the complaint without prejudice to file a "new and separate action."

Arnold argues that the trial court should have accepted his amended complaint as the operative complaint and that the court erred in ruling on AFLP's motion to dismiss the original complaint. We agree. "[A] plaintiff has the absolute right to amend a complaint once as a matter of course before a responsive pleading is served, and a trial court has no discretion to deny such an amendment." Boca Burger,...