KOSCOT INTERPLANETARY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY AND ROY REID AND ASSOCIATES, INC., 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.
Florida appellate court reversed dismissal of action, holding that a letter to the trial court regarding case scheduling tolls the one-year period for dismissal under Rule 1.420(e) even if not technically a pleading.
A letter to the trial court reflecting that a case is being prosecuted tolls the one-year dismissal period under Rule 1.420(e), regardless of whether it qualifies as a formal pleading.
[1] Any paper or document filed in a case that reflects the case is being moved forward and prosecuted tolls the one-year dismissal period under Florida Rule of Civil Procedu…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“the time periods provided for in the above-cited rule will be tolled by the filing of any paper or document which reflects that the case is being moved forward and being prosecuted”
Court explaining the standard for tolling under Rule 1.420(e)
Appellant's counsel sent a letter dated September 12, 1989, to the trial court requesting that the case be set for trial in fall 1989. The trial court…
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 Tolling Of Time Periods cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The trial court’s “Order Granting Third Party Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss”, signed on June 27,1990, finds that “... the court file does contain ...” the letter that appellant’s counsel represented that he had sent to the trial court to remind the trial judge about setting the case for trial dur ing the fall of 1989. Despite noting the presence of the said letter, dated September 12, 1989, the trial court’s order dismissing the cause specifically finds that the said letter does not “... qualify as a pleading that would represent file activity ...” which would serve to toll the running of the one-year time period provided for in Rule 1.420(e) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
Despite the fact that the trial court used the word “pleading” in its order, the law is clear that the time periods provided for in the above-cited rule will be tolled by the filing of any paper or document which reflects that the case is being moved forward and being prosecuted. Since the record herein reflects that the court found that the court file did contain the letter, the subsequent finding by the trial court that the said letter did not toll the running of the time period, provided for in the above-cited rule, was erroneous. The order does not contain any finding or language impugning or questioning the authenticity of the letter in question. As a result, the record does not reflect any reason for ignoring the letter when computing the time that transpired in relation to the above-cited rule.
Accordingly, the dismissal entered herein must be reversed with this case being remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Warren F.X. Smith v. Broward Cnty., 654 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…less a party shows good cause in writing why it should not be dismissed. The Smiths’ letter would have constituted sufficient record activity to avoid dismissal if it had been placed in the court file. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 580 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). We therefore hold that the letter constituted a sufficient showing of good cause even though it was not record activity. We note that the better procedure in this case would have been for the Smiths’ counsel to have filed a moti…