CASTLE CLUB CORP., ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
LIBERTY INTERNATIONAL, INC., 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.
Castle Club Corp. appeals from a judgment entered against it after trial, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by allowing its counsel to withdraw on the day trial began while denying a continuance, leaving the corporation unrepresented. The court reversed, holding that permitting trial counsel to withdraw without granting a continuance to allow a corporation to obtain substitute counsel constitutes an abuse of discretion.
The trial court abused its discretion. A trial court may not permit trial counsel to withdraw on the day of trial without granting a continuance to permit the party—particularly a corporation that cannot represent itself—to obtain new counsel. This is error regardless of whether there is evidence that prior continuances were engineered to delay proceedings.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion for continuance on the day of trial when the court simultaneously allows trial counsel to withdraw, leaving a part…
[2] A corporation cannot represent itself in Florida courts and must be represented by an attorney.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Permitting trial counsel to withdraw on the day of trial without granting a continuance to permit appellant to obtain new counsel was an abuse of discretion. This was particularly egregious in the case of a corporation which cannot represent itself, but would be error in any event.”
Establishes the legal standard that withdrawal of counsel without continuance is abuse of discretion, especially for corporations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLiberty International sued Castle Club for causes of action arising from the sale of kitchen and restaurant equipment. Castle Club's counsel requested…
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 Withdrawal Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Castle Club Corp. appeals from a final judgment and an order denying its motion for rehearing and a new trial. For the following reasons, we reverse.
In October, 1990, Liberty International, Inc., sued Castle Club for various causes of action that arose from the sale of kitchen and restaurant equipment. Castle Club answered, asserted affirmative defenses, and filed a counterclaim. The cause was set for trial beginning August 26, 1991, but was reset for September 23 and 24 at the request of Castle Club’s new counsel, who had entered the case on August 12, 1991. Castle Club’s counsel then filed a Notice of Conflict, as September 23 and 24 were Jewish holidays and both counsel and Castle Club’s principal, Abe Hirschfeld, are Orthodox Jews. The cause was reset for October 21, 1991.
On October 18, 1991, the attorney for Castle Club moved to withdraw, citing a breakdown in communication with his client, irreconcilable differences, and orders from his client to cease representing him. Counsel also filed a motion for continuance and to allow substitution of counsel. On the day the trial was set to begin, the trial court granted the attorney’s motion to withdraw but denied the motion for continuance and ordered that the trial go forward as scheduled.
The matter was tried; final judgment was entered for Liberty International on its complaint and on Castle Club’s counterclaim. Following an unsuccessful motion for rehearing and for a new trial, Castle Club appeals.
The trial court abused its discretion in denying Castle Club’s motion for continuance while simultaneously allowing its counsel to withdraw the very day that trial began, thereby leaving the corporation unrepresented at trial. See Hub Financial Corp. v. Olmetti, 465 So. 2d 618, 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (“Permitting trial counsel to withdraw on the day of trial without granting a continuance to permit appellant to obtain new counsel was an abuse of discretion. This was particularly egregious in the case of a corporation which cannot represent itself, but would be error in any event.”) (citations omitted).
See also Punta Gorda Pines Dev., Inc. v. Slack Excavating, Inc., 468 So. 2d 438, 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (corporation must be represented by attorney when it appears in Florida courts).
There is no evidence in the record that the prior continuances obtained in this case were engineered to prevent its orderly disposition, or that a further continuance would have been prejudicial. See Tsavaris v. Tsavaris, 244 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971) (in absence of record support for finding of dereliction on wife’s part that was prejudicial to orderly disposition of divorce action or prejudicial to court or other party, denial of wife’s motion for continuance after granting her counsel leave to withdraw was abuse of discretion).
Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment under review and remand for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded for new trial. JORGENSON and LEVY, JJ., concur.
NESBITT, Judge
(concurring):
I entirely agree with the court. I write only to observe that were the trial judge’s perceptions of the last-minute discharge of counsel real, he would have been warranted in denying the motion to withdraw.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fleming v. Fleming, 710 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…058 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (holding that trial court abused its discretion in denying movant’s motion for continuance after allowing movant’s counsel to withdraw on the day of trial); Jean, 596 So. 2d at 1247; Castle Club Corp. v. Liberty Intern., Inc., 598 So. 2d 263, 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Ziegler, 590 So. 2d at 1067; Tsavaris, 244 So. 2d at 452-53. The circumstances of the instant case differ from those of the cases cited above. The instant case does not involve a motion for continuance being brought on the…
-
Sacco v. Douglas Slavin, M.D., 641 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…to obtain substitute counsel. That argument could have [*957] been raised by motion for rehearing or upon appeal from the final judgment. See Castellanos v. K-Mart Store, 632 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Castle Club Corp. v. Liberty Int’l, Inc., 598 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Hub Financial Corp. v. Olmetti, 465 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). The Florida Supreme Court has said that Rule 1.540 “was not ‘intended to serve as a substitute for the new trial mechanism prescribed by Rule 1.530 nor as a sub…
-
Castellanos v. K-Mart Store, 632 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…he court granted defendant’s motion for directed verdict. The trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion for continuance after allowing plaintiffs counsel to withdraw on the day of trial. Castle Club Corp. v. Liberty Int’l, Inc., 598 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Hub Financial Corp. v. Olmetti, 465 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). The record does not demonstrate that defendant would have been prejudiced by allowing plaintiff a continuance to obtain new counsel. Castle Club Corp., 598 So. 2…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chapman v. Jorge Garcia, M.D., 465 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Punta Gorda Pines Dev., Inc. v. Slack Excavating, Inc., 468 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Bush v. Kilpatrick, 244 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Tsavaris v. Tsavaris, 244 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)