PER CURIAM.

Clarke Silverglate, P.A., and Craig Salner and Karen H. Curtis , for appellant.

AXS Law Group, PLLC, and Jeffrey W. Gutchess , for appellee.

Before LOGUE, SCALES, and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the trial court's determination that the contract terms at issue warranted the granting of the Appellee's motion for summary judgment. Shivdasani v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 306 So.3d 1156, 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) ("Courts cannot disregard ... agreed-upon, contractual provisions between parties. To do so would be to strike the ... obligations from the contract by way of judicial fiat and the bargained-for contractual terms would be rendered surplusage.").

In addition, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of Appellant's motion to amend its complaint. In the last weeks before the summary judgment hearing, Appellant sought to add counts maintaining that the contract provisions he had relied upon in the litigation up to that point in time did not reflect the parties' intent and must be reformed on account of mutual or unilateral mistake. The trial court properly found that the amendment would be both untimely and futile. Vella v. Salaues, 290 So.3d 946, 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). Accordingly, we affirm the well-reasoned judgment of the trial court.