BARBARA MCK. MUMMA AND LISA MUMMA MORGAN, AS CO-EXECUTRIXES OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
ROBERT MUMMA, II, AND HI-SPEC, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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 trial court lacked the authority to sua sponte "close" the case without a pending motion, as this power was eliminated by rule.
Following a partial final judgment dissolving a corporation and ordering an accounting, the trial court "closed" the action without further proceeding…
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 Final Accounting cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, both the appellants and the appellees allege error in the trial court’s 1998 order which “closed” an action without further judicial proceedings, following a 1993 partial final judgment dissolving a corporation and ordering a final accounting. We reverse.
The trial court lacked authority to “close” this case. While trial courts at one time possessed the inherent power to dismiss a cause that was not being prosecuted with reasonable diligence, that power was eliminated with enactment of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure. 1.420(e). Kodner v. Florida Power and Light Co., 693 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Assuming, without deciding, that rule 1.420(e) applies after a partial final judgment is entered in a case,1 no rule 1.420(e) motion was pending when the trial court “closed” this case.
The order on appeal is reversed. The 1993 partial final judgment remains in force, and need not be revisited on re mand. The only issues left to be decided concern the final accounting and winding up of the corporation, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. Any concern the court may have regarding the parties’ lack of diligence in moving this case to conclusion can be addressed by setting a final hearing date, and holding to it.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DELL, POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. . Compare, Ravel v. Ravel, 326 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (holding rule 1.420(e) does not apply once a final judgment is entered) with Frohman v. Bar-Or, 660 So. 2d 633 (Fla.1995) (holding rule 1.420(e) applies to post-trial proceedings in mortgage foreclosure actions such as a motion for deficiency judgment)
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Runner O. Santana v. Henry, 12 So. 3d 843 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…v. State, 711 So. 2d 1246, 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)). See Lenoir v. Jones, 979 So. 2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (trial court’s sua sponte dismissal reversed because plaintiff was not given notice or an opportunity to be heard); Mumma v. Mumma, 734 So. 2d 571, 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (trial court did not have inherent power to dismiss causes as not being prosecuted with reasonable diligence); Lambrix v. Dugger, 547 So. 2d 1265, 1266 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (trial court erred in dismissing prisoner’s complain…
-
Domenic Grosso v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 204 So. 3d 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…l court’s focus on semantics misses the big picture. While the trial court suggests it did not dismiss the case, the administrative closure operated as a dismissal for all relevant intents and purposes. A similar order was issued in Mumma v. Mumma, 734 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), where the trial court “closed” an action five years after granting a partial final judgment dissolving a corporation and ordering a final accounting. Despite the trial court’s use of the word “close” rather than “dismiss,” this…
-
Mumma v. Mumma, 780 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…POLEN, J. This is the second time this case has come before us. In Mumma v. Mumma, 734 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“Mumma I ”), we reversed the trial court’s order “closing” this case, following a 1993 partial final judgment that dissolved a corporation and ordered a final accounting. We remanded the case back to the trial court to oversee a…
Authorities Cited
- Frohman v. Bar-Or, 660 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1995)
- Lopez v. Lopez, 326 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Ravel v. Ravel, 326 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Russ Kodner v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 693 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)