LEONA WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
WALT DISNEY WORLD COMPANY, APPELLEE
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.
Williams appealed the dismissal of her personal injury suit against Disney World for failing to obtain counsel within 30 days as ordered by the trial court. The appellate court reversed, finding that Williams had substantially complied with the order by retaining counsel within the deadline, and that counsel's five-day delay in filing an appearance should not be charged against her.
The dismissal was improper and reversed. Williams substantially complied with the court's order by retaining counsel within 30 days, and counsel's unintentional five-day delay in filing an appearance should not be held against her.
[1] A trial court may dismiss a case with prejudice if a party fails to comply with an explicit order to obtain new counsel within a specified timeframe.
[2] A party's agreement to a dismissal conditioned on failure to obtain counsel within a set period binds them to that condition.
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“If no attorney is filed to represent you within 30 days, then I am going to enter an order dismissing this case finally and completely.”
The trial court's conditional warning to Williams about the consequences of failing to obtain counsel, establishing the requirement she agreed to.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams filed suit for injuries from a fall at Disney World. After her original counsel withdrew, the trial court ordered her to obtain new counsel w…
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 Dismissal With Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
LEE, R.E., Jr., Associate Judge.
The issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly dismissed Leona Williams’ complaint with prejudice due to her failure to obtain an attorney.
Williams originally filed suit for injuries allegedly received as a result of a fall at Disney World. After the matter was set for trial, Williams moved for a continuance, which was granted. Prior to the rescheduled trial, Williams’s counsel moved for leave to withdraw. The court granted the motion by order dated April 25, 1986, but required Williams to obtain new counsel within 20 days.
The case was subsequently set for the trial week beginning September 22, 1986. When it was called for trial on September 25, 1986, Williams appeared without counsel. The court examined Williams, and determined that it would be “a kind of travesty” to allow her to represent herself. Over objection by Disney World, the court granted Williams a continuance, with the requirement that she obtain counsel within 30 days. Williams agreed to a dismissal if counsel was not obtained. The following colloquy occurred:
THE COURT: ... If no attorney is filed to represent you within 30 days, then I am going to enter an order dismissing this case finally and completely.
MRS. WILLIAMS: All right, sir. THE COURT: Are you agreeable to that?
MRS. WILLIAMS: Yes, I agree.
THE COURT: Do you understand what I am saying?
MRS. WILLIAMS: Yes, I understand. If I don’t get an attorney within 30 days, then you will dismiss the case.
THE COURT: That’s correct.
MRS. WILLIAMS: I agree
On October 29,1986, no attorney had yet filed an appearance for Williams, and the court entered its final order of dismissal with prejudice. Williams filed a motion to reinstate, which was denied. Williams’ counsel on appeal claims that Williams did actually comply with the court’s order in that she retained his services well within the 30 days specified, and that it was his fault that no appearance was filed. Even so, a question remains as to whether the mere retention of counsel was sufficient to comply with the court’s order, or whether it was necessary that the counsel also file pleadings and make himself known to the court during the 30-day period.
Upon examining the record, we conclude that Williams did comply with what she understood to be the court’s order. Counsel’s unintentioned lapse of five days beyond the thirty days granted should not be held against Williams. Accordingly, the order entered below is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur.