Court Opinion

ID: 9588694
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:37:01.184017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:15.276868
License: Public Domain

Judge LEWIS
dissenting in part.
I would affirm the trial judge in all respects, therefore I dissent as to reversing the denial of the motion to amend the complaint.
Our Rules of Evidence do not require the trial judge to declare or state reasons for denying a motion to amend. Some cases seem to say there should be “apparent” or “declared” reasons. Here, we are substituting the discretion of the appellate court to determine what is “apparent,” what constitutes an “undue” delay, what is “dilatory” and what constitutes “undue prejudice.”
There is no doubt the complaint was filed 27 January 1988; the existence of the father and his position as well as all other aspects of the case were then well known. Undoubtedly there was a delay from then till 19 May 1988. The majority opinion will put us in the position of legislating how much time constitutes undue delay. The trial judge is in the better position to exercise discretion in this matter. Otherwise, the statute will be judicially changed to mean “amendments must be allowed unless the trial judge declares adequate reasons why not.”