COON CLOTHING COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DENNIS E. EGGERS, JANE S. EGGERS, AND FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, 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.
Coon Clothing Co. appeals the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission's denial of its request to reopen unemployment benefit appeals after missing a hearing due to short notice and the company president's absence. The court reverses, holding that good cause exists to reopen the appeals based on the short notice period and temporary absence from the office.
The court reversed the Commission's orders, holding that good cause exists to reopen the appeals. The short notice period (three working days) combined with the temporary absence of the responsible officer constitutes good cause for nonappearance, consistent with Florida's public policy favoring resolution of litigation on the merits rather than procedural defaults.
[1] Litigation should, wherever possible, be resolved on the merits rather than on the basis of a procedural default.
[2] Dismissal of an appeal is an extreme sanction and should only be imposed as a last resort.
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“It has long been the public policy of Florida that litigation should, wherever possible, be resolved on the merits rather than on the basis of a procedural default.”
Establishes the fundamental principle guiding the court's analysis and reversal of the Commission's dismissal based on procedural grounds.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Division of Unemployment Compensation determined that Dennis and Jane Eggers were entitled to unemployment benefits. Coon, the former employer, ap…
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 Failure To Prosecute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Coon Clothing Co. appeals orders of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission denying requests to reopen its appeals. We reverse.
The Florida Division of Unemployment Compensation made administrative determinations that appellees Dennis E. Eggers and Jane S. Eggers were entitled to unemployment benefits. Coon, the former employer, appealed. On August 30, 1989 the Unemployment Compensation Appeals Bureau mailed notices of hearing before an appeals referee for September 12, 1989. The notices required the employer to appear in person in Miami for a hearing, and permitted the Eggers, now residents of Tennessee, to appear by telephone. The notices arrived at the employer’s Marathon, Florida office on September 7, when the company president was out of town. He returned to the office on September 12 and saw the notices for the first time the morning of the hearing. He attempted to reach the referee, and was told that the cases had been dismissed because of the employer’s nonappearance.
The referee’s written orders advised the employer that “the Appeals Referee may for good cause rescind this decision and reopen the appeal, provided that such request is filed ... within twenty (20) calendar days.... ” The employer timely made requests to reopen the appeals, setting forth the circumstances outlined above, and stating the reasons for the employer’s objections to the unemployment benefits in the present case. The requests to reopen were denied and the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirmed, holding that “The employer in this case has failed to establish good cause for nonappearance .... ”
It has long been the public policy of Florida that litigation should, wherever possible, be resolved on the merits rather than on the basis of a procedural default. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Co. v. Dozier, 310 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Dismissal is an extreme sanction and should only be imposed as a last resort. Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla.1983).
In the present case the notices actually arrived at the employer’s offices only three working days in advance of the hearing. Where, as here, there is a short absence from the business which results in nonappearance, we think good cause has been shown for reopening of the appeal. See Robinson v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 526 So. 2d 198, 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Pierre v. Oriente Sugar Cane Planting, Inc., 504 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Teater v. Department of Commerce, Board of Review, 370 So. 2d 847, 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Brennan v. Paul Barabas Interiors, 357 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Miami Dolphins, Ltd. v. Florida Dep’t of Commerce, 252 So. 2d 396, 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).
The Commission has made no suggestion of any prejudice that would have flowed had the reopening been promptly granted. We are unable to subscribe to the Commission’s view that the facts present here constitute failure to prosecute in the sense in which that term is used in Rule 1.420(e), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.1
We reverse the orders under review and remand with directions to reopen the employer’s appeals.2
. The decision in Florida State University v. Jenkins, 323 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), involves a factually different situation. Assuming ar-guendo the case is correctly decided, the rule it announces may be workable for large businesses with internal counsel, but not for small businesses or individual claimants.
. By this ruling we do not intimate any view on the merits of the employer's appeals.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Custodio v. Palm Truck Ctrs., Inc., 618 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…onstitute a denial of due process, the decision of the Unemployment Appeals Commission is reversed, and this case is remanded with directions that the claimant's appeal be heard and decided on its substantive merits. See Coon Clothing Co. v. Eggers, 560 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Robinson v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 526 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Pierre v. Oriente Sugar Cane Planting, Inc., 504 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Waldron v. City of Arcadia, 409 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982);…
-
Milner v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Waste Mgmt., 82 So. 3d 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…d not abuse her discretion in finding the employer had good cause to reopen the proceedings when the employer did not appear at the hearing “due to the misrouting of mail in the [employer’s] offices.” Similarly, in Coon Clothing Co., Inc. v. Eggers, 560 So. 2d 1357, 1357 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), the employer testified that the notice of hearing arrived five days before the hearing, when he was out of town, and that he did not see the notice until he arrived back in town on the morning of the hearing. The UAC ruled…
Authorities Cited
- Mercer v. J.D. Raine, Sr., 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1983)
- Fla. State Univ. v. Jenkins, 323 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Teater v. Dep't OF Commerce Bd. OF Review, 370 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- State v. Carroll, 252 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Burina Robinson v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Morrison, Inc., 526 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Halbert v. First Realty Servs., Inc., 504 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Adonia Pierre v. Oriente Sugar Cane Planting, Inc., 504 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Merrill-Stevens DRY Dock Co. v. Dozier, 310 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Brennan v. Interiors, 357 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)