ETHEL SCHNEIDER, APPELLANT,
v.
PETER SPAETH, 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.
Ethel Schneider appeals a default judgment entered against her for failing to attend a mandatory case management conference. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reverses, holding that the trial court failed to include required written findings that Schneider's conduct was willful and contumacious before entering the default.
The trial court erred in entering the default judgment because it failed to include requisite written findings that Schneider's conduct was willful and contumacious. A finding of willfulness is necessary before a court may enter a default under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.200(c), and failure to include such findings in the order constitutes reversible error.
[1] A finding that a party's conduct was willful and contumacious is necessary for entering a default under rule 1.200(c).
[2] A trial court must make a written finding that a party's failure to comply with a court order was willful or contumacious before dismissing an action or striking pleading…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“[A] finding that the party's conduct was willful and contumacious is necessary for entering a default under rule 1.200(c).”
Establishes the core legal requirement that willfulness findings are mandatory before default entry
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSchneider was a defendant in a suit brought by Peter Spaeth. After approximately two years of litigation, Schneider failed to appear at a mandatory ca…
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 Case Management Conference cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Ethel Schneider, appeals the trial court’s entry of a default and default final judgment against her after she failed to attend a case management conference. Schneider argues that the court erred in entering the default without including the requisite findings that her conduct, upon which the default was based, was willful. We agree, and reverse.
Schneider was one of several defendants in a suit brought by appellee, Peter Spaeth. After approximately two years of litigation between the parties, Schneider failed to appear at a mandatory case management conference. As a result of her non-appearance, the trial court issued an order, wherein the court stated it had “specifically advised [her] that a failure to attend the Status Conference would amount to an abandonment of the defense in this matter and shall give rise to the entry of a Default Judgment.” In that order, the court also found notice of the conference was served on Schneider at her correct address, and noted that she failed to attend as required. Consequently, the trial court found that Schneider had abandoned her defenses in the case, and ordered a default judgment against her. Her subsequent motion to set aside default and default final judgment was denied following a hearing. This appeal followed.
Where a party fails to attend a properly noticed case management conference, “the court may dismiss the action, strike the pleadings, limit proof or witnesses, or take any other appropriate action.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200(c). We have consistently held, however, that “[a] finding that the party’s conduct was willful and contumacious is necessary for entering a default under rule 1.200(c).” Giemme USA, LLC v. La Sala Group, Inc., 92 So.3d 920, 922 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quoting Zeigler v. Huston, 626 So.2d 1046, 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)); see also Townsend v. Feinberg, 659 So.2d 1218, 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (“Prior to exercising its discretion to grant dismissal based on failure to comply with a court order, the court must make a finding that the failure to comply was willful or contumacious.”).
The requisite written finding of willfulness is, in part, to provide assurance that “the trial judge has made a conscious determination that the noncompliance was more than mere neglect or inadvertence.” Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So.2d 1271, 1273 (Fla.1990). “[N]o ‘magic words’ are required but rath*1169er only a finding that the conduct upon which the order is based was equivalent to willfulness or deliberate disregard.” Id. Moreover, the trial court must include written findings supporting its ruling in the subject order, and “failure to do so constitutes reversible error.” Petersen & Hawthorne, P.A. v. EMI Enters., Inc., 115 So.3d 1064, 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (citation omitted); see also Kaufman ex rel. Yelnick v. FS Tenant Pool III Trust, 87 So.3d 1228, 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (reversing a dismissal because the order failed to contain a finding that the failure to appear was willful and contumacious); Giemme, 92 So.3d at 922 (reversing default and final judgment based on trial court’s order, entered after defendants failed to appear at case management conference, because that order failed to make the requisite finding that defendants’ conduct was willful and contumacious).
Here, the trial court’s order merely stated that Schneider had been properly noticed, and that the court had previously advised her that non-appearance at the case management conference would amount to an abandonment of her defense and give rise to a default. This was not sufficient. The court failed to include any findings that she engaged in willful and contumacious behavior to justify the default’s entry. Therefore, we reverse and remand to give the trial court the opportunity, after reviewing the record, to make a determination on whether her failure to appear at the court-mandated case management conference was willful, or in the alternative, to allow the matter to proceed.
Reversed and Remanded.
STEVENSON, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Oluwabukola Olawoye and Mulikatou Disu v. Olufisayo Arubuola, 198 So. 3d 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…lable punishment. Pla. R. Civ. P. 1.200(c). However, the severe sanction of striking pleadings and entering a default must be supported by an .express finding in the order “that the party’s conduct was willful and contumacious.” Schneider v. Spaeth, 133 So. 3d 1167, 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (citations omitted); see also Mullins v. Moneyham, 861 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (reversing order striking pleadings and entering default as sanction for failure to comply with discovery order; order lacked express wri…
-
Walter Walls, LLC v. Bright Prop. Solutions (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)
-
Walter Walls, LLC v. Bright Prop. Solutions (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…e opportunity, after reviewing the record, to make a determination on whether [Plaintiff’s] failure to appear at the court-mandated case management conference was willful, or in the alternative, to allow the matter to proceed.” Schneider v. Spaeth, 133 So. 3d 1167, 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Reversed and remanded. WARNER and CONNER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Moshe Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1990)
- Zeigler v. Huston, 626 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Townsend v. Feinberg, 659 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Kaufman v. FS Tenant Pool III Tr., 87 So. 3d 1228 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Giemme USA, LLC v. LA Sala Grp., Inc., 92 So. 3d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Petersen & Hawthorne, P.A. v. EMI Enters., Inc., 115 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Ralph J. Banks v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Revenue, 92 So. 3d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)