FRANCISCO SURIA, APPELLANT,
v.
RUGGLES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND LONNIE WRIGHT, AN INDIVIDUAL, 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 affirmed the trial court's denial of reinstatement based on indigency without proper counsel certification, but reversed and remanded regarding the trial court's failure to stay proceedings pending payment of assessed costs rather than dismissing the action outright.
A trial court must stay proceedings pending payment of assessed costs rather than dismiss an action ex parte under Rule 1.420(d), and an indigency claim requires written certification from counsel that the claim is meritorious and counsel will serve without compensation.
[1] An indigent litigant seeking to proceed in forma pauperis must provide written certification from counsel that the claim is meritorious, counsel has received no compensat…
[2] When a plaintiff fails to pay costs assessed against a defendant, the trial court must stay proceedings pending payment rather than dismiss the action ex parte under Rule…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSuria voluntarily dismissed his action, then recommenced it but failed to pay costs previously assessed against him by the trial court. The action was…
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 Assessment Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
At the call of the trial calendar, Suria’s counsel took a voluntary dismissal pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a). The action was recommenced and then dismissed ex parte for failure of Suria to pay the costs to the defendant which had been previously assessed against him pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(d). Through counsel, he sought to set aside dismissal of this action on the claim that he was indigent.
The trial court quite correctly denied the motion to reinstate on this ground because the motion and affidavit of claimant were not accompanied by written certificate from his counsel of record representing that in his opinion the claim was true and meritorious, that counsel had neither been paid nor promised any remuneration for his servic es, and that he intended to act as attorney for the claimant without compensation. § 57.081(1), Fla.Stat. (1987).
Nonetheless, as to his second ground, the trial court erred in not reinstating the action and staying the proceeding until payment of the costs to the defendant under the order had been complied with. Martin v. Arrow Cab, Inc., 107 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(d).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.