NICHOLAS A. CASSAS, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID M. LAZAN AND MELVYN TRUTE, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellant Cassas appealed a summary judgment granted against him in a specific performance action for real property. The court reversed because the trial court improperly relied on deemed admissions based on technical failure to timely respond to a request for admissions, where the deadline fell on Thanksgiving and adjacent holidays.
The court held that when a court designates a holiday, that day must be considered a legal holiday in computing times under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, it was error to deem the admissions admitted, and summary judgment cannot be entered based on such technical procedural defaults where material facts remain at issue.
[1] A court-designated holiday is a legal holiday for the computation of time under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
[2] A summary judgment based on admissions deemed admitted due to untimely filing is improper if the deadline for filing admissions falls on a holiday or weekend.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We hold that when a court designates a holiday, the day so designated shall be considered a legal holiday in computation of any times pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Establishes the governing rule for treating court-designated holidays in time computations under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCassas brought an action for specific performance on a real property sales contract and filed a Notice of Lis Pendens. Appellees moved for summary jud…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Technical Admissions cases and more on FLexlaw
WESSEL, JOHN D., Associate Judge.
This is an appeal from an adverse final summary judgment. We reverse because the trial court bottomed its decision on technical admissions having the effect of eliminating any genuine issue of material fact.
Appellant instituted an action for specific performance on a contract for the sale of real property. His complaint was accompanied by a Notice of Lis Pendens.
The appellees by motion sought a summary judgment and the quashing or discharging of the lis pendens. The trial court relied upon a request for admissions which were deemed admitted because answers were not filed timely. The request for admissions was served on October 20, 1983. Their answers were due thirty days later with five (5) days for mailing (See Rule 1.370, Fla.R.Civ.P. and Rule 1.090(e), Fla.R.Civ.P.). Accordingly, the answers were due November 24, 1983 which was Thanksgiving Day, and the next day was a court-designated holiday followed by a two-day weekend.
A court-designated holiday is a legal holiday contemplated by Rule 1.090(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. See Farrell v. Bendix Corporation, 232 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). We hold that when a court designates a holiday, the day so designated shall be considered a legal holiday in computation of any times pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
Therefore it was error for the trial court to consider the request for admis sions admitted for the purpose of appellees motion for summary judgment. Because the summary judgment had not precluded issues of material facts had the answers to the request for admissions been allowed, a full trial on the merits on remand will now be required. We need not address the other points raised on appeal except to point out it was equally error for the trial court not to allow the appellant to amend his complaint. Commercial Garden Mall v. Success Academy, Inc., 453 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
Also, on remand the trial court should consider this court’s holding in Berkley Multi-Units, Inc. v. Linder, 464 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) on the issue of the discharge of the lis pendens based on unrecorded instrument.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cummins Ala., Inc. v. Allbritten, 548 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…g as a legal holiday, appellant says that the motion should have been filed on or before that date. This means, in effect, that the motion had to be filed on the Wednesday immediately preceding Thanksgiving. Appellees, however, cite Cassas v. Lazan, 488 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), wherein the fourth district found that the day after Thanksgiving was a “legal holiday” contemplated by Rule 1.090(a), as authority for extending the time for filing the motion for new trial to the following Monday, the first da…
-
Dick Furlong v. Surf Consultants, Inc., 171 So. 3d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…cord it appears that the answers were timely served. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.514(b) (extending a deadline computed pursuant to rule 2.514(a) by five days when an act must be undertaken following service by mail or email); see also Cassas v. Lazan, 488 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (applying the predecessor to rule 2.514(b), i.e., Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(e), to the rule governing requests for admissions, i.e., rule 1.370). The record contains a request for 'production from Mr. Furlong in Dece…
-
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Kenyon, 826 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…ial definition of “legal holiday.” In 1986, the Fourth District held that when a court designates a holiday, the day so designated is considered a legal holiday for purposes of computing time under the rules of civil procedure. See Cassas v. Lazan, 488 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). The opinion contains little discussion or reasoning, but if this court follows Cassas, the motion to dismiss must be denied.7 In 1989, Judge Zehmer addressed a case that is virtually identical to this case except for the fact t…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Berkley Multi-Units, Inc. v. Linder, 464 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Travelers Indem. Co. OF Am. v. Se. Commc'ns, Inc., 453 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Commercial Garden Mall v. The Success Acad., Inc., 453 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Andrew v. Farrell, 232 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)