JOYCE KAREN PAYNE AND PETER PAYNE, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT L. POYNTER AND R.L. POYNTER CONSTRUCTION, 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.
The Paynes sued for personal injuries from an automobile accident but had to refile their complaint in a different county due to a venue challenge. The trial court dismissed the action for failing to serve the defendants within 120 days of refiling, but the appellate court reversed, finding that an agreement between counsel to postpone service constituted good cause for the delay.
The court concluded that good cause was demonstrated by the agreement between the Paynes' counsel and the appellees' original counsel, and therefore the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the action.
[1] An agreement between counsel that service of process will not be required upon refiling a voluntarily dismissed action can constitute good cause for failing to serve with…
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion when it dismisses a personal injury action for failure to serve process within 120 days despite a showing of good cause.
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“the agreement with appellees' first counsel does constitute good cause and the trial court abused its discretion by reaching a contrary conclusion”
The court's holding that the agreement between counsel provided good cause for the delay in service and that dismissal was improper.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Paynes filed suit in Hillsborough County against the appellees for injuries from an automobile accident. After a motion to abate for improper venu…
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 Good Cause For Untimely Service cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The issue raised in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs in a personal injury action demonstrated good cause why service was not made within 120 days as required by rule 1.0700), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. We conclude that good cause was shown and, therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the action.
Joyce and Peter Payne (the Paynes) sued the appellees for injuries Mrs. Payne suffered in an automobile accident allegedly caused by the appellees. Suit was initially filed in Hillsborough County. No challenge was made to service in that case. However, the. Paynes voluntarily dismissed that suit and filed this action in Pasco County in response to a motion to abate for improper venue. On a date not reflected in the record, counsel for the appellees died. On October 28, 1996, appellees’ new counsel filed a notice of appearance for the limited purpose of moving to dismiss the case for failure to serve the complaint within 120 days of its refiling. At the hearing on the motion, the Paynes’ counsel presented, by unrebutted affidavit, his agreement with the appellees’ first counsel that the Paynes would not have to serve the appellees when the suit was refiled in Pasco County. For reasons that are not clear from the record, the trial court stated, “It’s clear, Mr. Mastrelli (Paynes’ counsel) that you cannot rely on your agreement with Mr. Wilson (appellees’ deceased counsel).” Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the agreement with appellees’ first counsel does constitute good cause and the trial court abused its discretion by reaching a contrary conclusion.
Accordingly, we reverse the order dismissing the action and remand for further proceedings.
PATTERSON, A.C.J., and FULMER and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vennila Amaran v. Aubyn Marath, M.D., 34 So. 3d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…l such time as plaintiffs counsel agreed to take the doctor’s deposition without serving him with process at the deposition, amounted to good cause for failure to serve within the 120-day period within the meaning of Rule 1.070(j). Payne v. Poynter, 707 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that agreement with Poynter’s predecessor counsel not to serve complaint on Poynter constituted good cause in delay of service and trial court abused its discretion by holding otherwise). Even if good cause had not been d…