STANLEY R. JOSEPH AND APRIL S. JOSEPH, APPELLANTS,
v.
DONALD MARESE AND GEORGEANNE MARESE, 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.
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by entering a default judgment and striking the defendants' pleadings for a minor procedural violation.
Plaintiffs sued defendants for breach of warranty, contract, and fraudulent misrepresentation. The defendants answered some counts but moved to dismis…
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 Striking Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Stanley and April Joseph appeal from a final judgment entered upon an order of default. For the reasons which follow, we reverse.
Donald and Georgeanne Marese sued the Josephs on December 12, 1987, for breach of express warranty, breach of contract, and fraudulent misrepresentation concerning structural defects in a house the Mares-es purchased from the Josephs. On January 22, 1988, the Mareses moved for entry of a default. By agreed order dated February 2, 1988, the trial court ordered the Josephs “to file an answer to the Complaint by no later than February 5, 1988.” On February 5, 1988, the Josephs answered counts one and two (breach of express warranty and breach of contract), raised affirmative defenses, and moved to dismiss count three (fraudulent misrepresentation). On April 21, 1988, the court entered an order of default on the ground that “Defendants have wilfully violated this Court’s Agreed Order entered February 2,1988, by failing to file an Answer to Count III of the Complaint as ordered.” The trial court struck the Josephs’ pleadings and, upon submission of affidavits of indebtedness, entered a final judgment for compensatory damages, costs, and attorney’s fees.
The trial court abused its discretion in entering the default and striking the Josephs’ pleadings. The Josephs’ response to count three by way of a motion to dismiss instead of an answer was a minor dereliction of the agreed order. See Techno Industrial Corp. v. Cooper Indus., Inc., 410 So. 2d 584 (Fla.3d DCA 1982) (where defendant filed second motion to dismiss instead of answer after entry of an agreed order requiring answer, default judgment and striking of defendant’s pleadings too harsh a sanction and an abuse of discretion).
Reversed and remanded for trial on the merits.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Osheroff v. Osheroff, 694 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…is was much too harsh a sanction for the minor dereliction involved and thus constituted a plain abuse of discretion.” Techno Indus. Corp. v. Cooper Indus., Inc., 410 So. 2d 584, 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (citations omitted); see also Joseph v. Marese, 534 So. 2d 920, 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Thaw, Gopman & Assocs., P.A v. Jack J. Greenberg, M.D. & Assocs., PA, 595 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Accordingly the final judgment and default are reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. Reversed and…
-
Thaw, Gopman & Assocs., P.A. v. Jack J. Greenberg, M.D. & Assocs., P.A., 595 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…c., P.A., and Ronald Thaw. Under the circumstances of this case, the submission of motions to modify a stay and to dismiss the complaint instead of an answer as provided in the trial court’s order does not merit entry of a default. Joseph v. Marese, 534 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Techno Indus. Corp. v. Cooper Indus., Inc., 410 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Reversed and remanded.…
Authorities Cited
- Techno Indus. Corp. v. Cooper Indus., Inc., 410 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)