BUSH AVIATION ENTERPRISES, A FLORIDA CORPORATION ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN A. CROWNOVER, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1968-01-23
No. 67-228
Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.
206 So. 2d 242 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1968)

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.


Holding

The court held that striking a party's pleadings and entering a default judgment is proper when the party fails to appear at court-ordered pretrial conferences after repeated notice.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant failed to appear at two pretrial conferences, and after a third order directing appearance on penalty of default, again failed to appear. Th…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, defendant below in an action for conversion, appeals from a final judgment and an order striking the appellant’s pleadings and holding trial on damages only. The thrust of the appeal is that the trial judge committed reversible error when he struck appellant’s answer and entered a default because appellant failed to respond to an order directing it to appear by its attorney for a pretrial conference. We affirm.

The record reveals that appellant failed to appear at two regularly scheduled pretrial conferences. The trial court then properly entered an order directing appellant to appear at the third scheduled pretrial conference upon penalty of having its pleadings stricken and a default entered if an appearance was not made. Appellant failed to appear a third time and the court properly took the action specified.

The court then set the cause for trial on the issue of damages. Thereafter, the final judgment now appealed was entered. We find that the procedure followed is not only amply supported by the rules but was fully justified by the facts before the trial court.

Appellant has presented an additional point going to venue which does not present error.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw