BERMUDA ATLANTIC LINE LIMITED, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, 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.
Bermuda Atlantic Line's default judgment was reversed because the trial court abused its discretion in denying relief where the defendant was not properly served with notice of its former attorney's withdrawal motion or the resulting pretrial conference order.
A trial court abuses its discretion in denying relief from a default judgment when the defendant was not properly served with the motion to withdraw counsel or the order granting that motion, and had no notice of the oral default application at the pretrial hearing.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion in denying relief from a default judgment when the defendant was not properly served with notice of counsel's withdrawal motion or the…
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 intelligenceBermuda Atlantic Line's former attorney moved to withdraw without properly serving the client with the motion or ensuring the client received the cour…
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 Attorney Withdrawal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Bermuda Atlantic Line Limited, appeals the denial of its motion for relief from a default judgment. The default was entered when appellant failed to appear at pretrial conference with a new attorney as required by the court’s order granting the motion to withdraw of the appellant’s former attorney. Appellant was not properly served by its attorney with the motion to withdraw, nor did appellant actually receive the order granting the former attorney’s motion.1 At the pretrial hearing, appellees made an oral application for default, of which appellants had no notice. Under these circumstances, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for relief from the default judgment. Seinsheimer Co., Inc. v. Cobia Point Condominium Ass’n, 616 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). We therefore reverse.
ERVIN and WOLF, JJ., and CAWTHON, Senior Judge, concur. . We decline to impute notice of this order to appellant where appellant's counsel did not actually contact appellant but rather faxed the order to an address which was not the address of the appellant or its registered agent. See Seinsheimer Co., Inc. v. Cobia Point Condominium Ass'n, 616 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). While appellant's attorney indicated he had sent material there in the past which had reached appellant, it is unclear from the record before us what relationship the appellant had with the address in question.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zeigler v. Huston, 626 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…rnett Bank of Palm Beach County, 434 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (rule 1.500(b) requires notice and a hearing before entry of default against a party who has filed a paper in the action); Bermuda Atlantic Line, Ltd. v. Florida East Coast Railway, 622 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (default entered when party failed to appear at pretrial conference was error since party had no notice of application for default). See also Bloom v. Palmetto Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 477 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Barry v. B…
-
Corso v. Jaya Padmanabhan, M.D., 796 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…counsel to withdraw, motion for default, default order, motion to set the case for trial, or order setting the case for trial. See, e.g., Williams v. Adams, 636 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). See also Bermuda Atl. Line Ltd. v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 622 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Seinsheimer Cos. v. Cobia Point Condo. Ass’n, 616 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Bridges v. Bridges, 520 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). ERVIN, DAVIS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.…
-
Jean-Philippe Schneider v. Tirikian (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Seinsheimer Cos., Inc. v. Cobia Point Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 616 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)