2court to file a counterclaim containing several counts. The Bank filed a motion forsummary judgment. Both motions were heard together, after which the trial court deniedGreen’s motion to add a counterclaim, granted the Bank’s motion for summary judgment,and entered a final judgment of foreclosure.On appeal, Green argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to add acounterclaim and in granting the Bank’s motion for summary judgment when the Bankhad not refuted all of his affirmative defenses. We agree.First, the court erred in denying Green’s motion to add a counterclaim. A trialcourt’s denial of a motion to add a counterclaim is reviewed for abuse of discretion. SeeCedar Mountain Estates, LLC v. Loan One, LLC, 4 So. 3d 15, 16 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).All doubts must be resolved in favor of allowing amendment, and “[p]ublic policy . . .favors the liberal granting of leave to amend where the failure to do so will likely preventthe cause from being resolved on its merits.”Crown v. Chase Home Fin., 41 So. 3d 978,980 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Consequently, “[r]efusal to allow amendment of a pleadingconstitutes an abuse of discretion unless it clearly appears that allowing the amendmentwould prejudice the opposing party; the privilege to amend has been abused; oramendment would be futile.”Sonny Boy, L.L.C. v. Asnani, 879 So. 2d 25, 28 (Fla. 5thDCA 2004).One count of Green’s proposed counterclaim, and the only count he addresseson appeal, alleged that the Bank violated the federal Real Estate Settlement ProceduresAct (RESPA) by failing to notify him of a change in the servicer of his loan.
See 12 U.S.C. § 2605(c)(1), (2)(B) (2011).