EDWARD J. COPE, APPELLANT,
v.
JEFFREY K. WAUGH, D/B/A THE WAUGH COMPANY, A DISSOLVED CORPORATION, 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.
The court held that it was error to allow an action to proceed after the death of a defendant without substituting the defendant's estate.
Appellant sued the defendant for money damages. Before a motion to dismiss was ruled upon, the defendant died. The trial court allowed the defendant's…
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 Action For Money Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant (plaintiff in the trial court) seeks review of an adverse summary final judgment entered in his action for money damages. We conclude that it was error to permit the action to proceed after the death of the defendant without requiring substitution of the defendant’s estate. Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellant sued the defendant, Jeffrey K. Waugh, in his individual capacity, doing business as a dissolved Florida corporation. The complaint alleged that the defendant was indebted to appellant on account of services performed by appellant for the defendant. The defendant timely filed a motion to dismiss appellant’s complaint. However, before that motion had been ruled upon, the defendant died. Appellant promptly filed a suggestion of death, requesting, pursuant to rule 1.260(a)(1), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, that the defendant’s estate be substituted as a party. Instead of ruling upon that request, the trial court permitted the attorney who had represented the defendant to continue to defend the ease. After the motion to dismiss had been denied, the attorney was allowed to file an answer and affirmative defenses, and then a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court ultimately granted.
Upon the death of an indispensable party, the action abates until the deceased party’s estate, or other appropriate legal representative, has been substituted pursuant to rule 1.260(a)(1). Floyd v. Wallace, 339 So. 2d 653 (Fla.1976). Accordingly, it was error for the trial court to enter judgment before the defendant’s estate had been substituted as a party. Therefore, we reverse the summary final judgment, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
BARFIELD, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Metcalfe v. Spencer LEE, M.D. & Mark A. Pinsky, M.D., P.A., 952 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…order of the court on its own initiative. See Fla. R. Civ.'P. 1.250(b), 1.420(a)(2). Under both scenarios, however, the action would abate until the party's estate, or other appropriate legal representative, has been substituted. See Cope v. Waugh, 627 So. 2d 136, 136 [*630] (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (“Upon the death of an indispensable party, the action abates until the deceased party's estate, or other appropriate representative, has been substituted pursuant to rule 1.260(a)(1).”). However, as we already stated…
-
Schaeffler v. Yuliya Deych and Boris Bezrodnyy, 38 So. 3d 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…Reid, 930 So. 2d 598, 599 (Fla.2006)). If an indispensible party to an action dies, “the action abates until the deceased party’s estate, or other appropriate legal representative, has been substituted pursuant to rule 1.260(a)(1).” Cope v. Waugh, 627 So. 2d 136, 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (citing Floyd v. Wallace, 339 So. 2d 653 (Fla.1976)). Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.260(a)(1) (2008) provides that: If a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court may order substitution of the prop…1 / 2
-
Lian DE LA Riva v. Chavez, 303 So. 3d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)…indispens[a]ble party to an action dies, ‘the action abates until the deceased party’s estate, or other appropriate legal representative, has been substituted pursuant to [R]ule 1.260(a)(1).’” Schaeffler, 38 So. 3d at 799 (quoting Cope v. Waugh, 627 So. 2d 136, 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)). 4 Moreover, the “[f]ailure to substitute the proper representative or guardian nullifies subsequent proceedings.” Id. at 800; see also Ballard v. Wood, 863 So. 2d 1246, 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (finding that a fai…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miller v. Earle Bennett, 339 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1976)