Appellants Charles Ryan Hickman and Carol Cavanagh Hickman (“the Hick-mans”) timely appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Bjorn Aaserod (“Aaserod”) and denial of their request to amend their summary judgment pleadings. This Court has jurisdiction. Fla. RApp. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A) (2008). For the reasons stated below, we reverse in part.
Aaserod bought a home in Palm Beach County, next door to his friend, Robert *806 Wyner (“Wynеr”). Wyner is a real estate agent for Barclay’s International Realty, Inc. (“Barclay’s”), which handled Aaserod’s real estate transaction. When Aaserod began renovating his house, Wyner lent assistance by overseeing the renovations and paying the bills as a signatory to Aaserod’s bank account.
On January 23, 1999, Appellant Charles Ryan Hickman (“Hickman”) became interested in рurchasing Aaserod’s home and entered the property to obtain Aaserod’s contact information. As he was leaving, Wyner saw Hickman and called the police. The two men got into a minor confrontation, and Hickman was charged with petty theft, battery against Wyner, and misdemeanor trespass.
After he was found not guilty on all three counts, Hickman and his wife filed a multi-count cоmplaint against Wyner, Aas-erod, and Barclay’s. In their second amended complaint, the Hickmans alleged, inter alia, that Wyner was negligеnt for failing “to utilize ordinary care to report truthfully and accurately to the [police] any facts regarding the incident.” Thе complaint also alleged that Aaserod was liable for Wyner’s purported negligence due to their agency relationship.
In response, Aaserod filed a motion for summary judgment, disputing the allegation of agency. Contrary to Wyner’s assertion thаt he contacted the police at the direction of Aaserod, Aaserod produced evidence to show that he was in flight during the incident involving Hickman and, thus, could not have instructed Wyner to call the police. The court granted Aaser-od’s motion for summary judgment.
A trial court’s order granting summary judgment is reviewed under the
de novo
standard.
Johnson v. Boca Raton Cmty. Hosp.,
Generally, the existence of an agency rеlationship is a question of fact; however, when the moving party fails to produce any supportive evidence or when the evidence presented is so unequivocal that reasonable persons could reach but one conclusiоn, that question of fact becomes a question of law to be determined by the court.
Rubin v. Gabay,
The key element in establishing actual аgency is the control by the principal over the actions of the agent.
See
In this case, as the Hickmans allege, Aaserod gave Wyner a key to his home so Wyner could have access in his absenсe; Aaserod designated Wyner as a signator on his checking account to enable Wyner to pay the mortgage, utilities, maintenance, and taxes; Wyner interviewed and selected architects and engineers for Aaserod’s review; and Wyner inspected the property and paid for repairs once he ascertained the work was completed.
Given thosе facts, it is still possible that a jury would determine that no agency relationship existed here. But, for the court to determine as a matter of law, that
*807
no agency relationship existed, the standard is higher. “[E]videnee presented by both parties [must be] so unequivocal that reasonable persons could reach but one conclusion.”
As such, we reverse the trial court’s grant of Aaserod’s summary judgment. It wаs error for the court to find, as a matter of law, that no agency relationship existed between Aaserod and Wyner. That issuе, in this case, should be for a fact finder’s determination.
The Hickmans argue additionally that the trial court erred in denying what should have been a liberally allowed amendment to their second amended complaint. We find that the record does not lend suрport for this argument.
First, a trial court’s decision on a motion to amend the pleadings is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Williams v. Palm Beach Cmty. Coll. Found.,
“While the policy in Florida is to liberally allow аmendments to pleadings where justice so requires, a trial judge in the exercise of sound discretion may deny further amendments wherе a case has progressed to a point that liberality ordinarily to be indulged has diminished.”
Alvarez v. DeAguirre,
Here, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the Hickmans’ motion, having dеtermined that they had taken advantage of numerous opportunities to amend their pleadings and that the case had been pending for a long time. We affirm the trial court’s decision denying leave to amend.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.