LLOYD J. BENNETT, JR., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
SIMON HALPER ET AL., 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 court affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 1.540(b)(1), finding that defendant-attorney Bennett failed to demonstrate excusable neglect for missing the deadline to appeal after the oral denial of his motion for rehearing.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for relief. Bennett failed to demonstrate clear excusable neglect, and the court properly found insufficient grounds to grant relief from the judgment.
[1] A trial court has discretion to grant relief from a final judgment rendered without notice or knowledge.
[2] A party seeking relief from a judgment based on excusable neglect must clearly demonstrate such neglect.
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“At the outset, we observe that appellee's counsel was patently neglectful. As counsel of record he had a continuing duty to make sure of the current status of the case; particularly is this true as to critical time periods the tolling or running of which could affect his client's substantive rights.”
Establishes that attorneys have a continuing duty to monitor case status and critical deadlines, from the cited Kash N'Karry case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFinal judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs on May 18, 1970. The trial court orally denied Bennett's motion for rehearing on July 20, 1970, with…
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 Duty Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
Final judgment was entered on behalf of plaintiffs (appellees) on May 18, 1970. The court retained jurisdiction in order to enter a cost judgment for plaintiffs.
Defendant filed a motion for rehearing. Counsel for both parties were present when the trial court orally denied the motion for rehearing on July 20, 1970. The written order denying the motion for rehearing was entered July 22, and recorded July 24, 1970. No timely appeal was filed by the defendant. On September 3, 1970, defendant filed a motion for relief from the order denying the motion for rehearing under Rule 1.540(b) (1), R.C.P., 31 F.S.A.
Defendants alleged that they never received a copy of the order denying rehearing; that defendant and his attorney were unaware of the entry of the order until August 31, 1970; that they were entitled to receive a copy of the written order and that defendant desired to appeal from the final judgment. An affidavit was filed by the secretary of the trial judge in which she averred that she mailed copies of the order to the defendant and his attorney, together with an affidavit of plaintiff’s attorney, which essentially corroborated the affidavit of the judge’s secretary. An affidavit was filed by the defendant stating that he had never received a copy of the order denying the motion for rehearing.
In this interlocutory appeal appellants assert excusable neglect under the rule and that the court erred in denying their motion for relief. The rules of practice in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida require such orders be submitted to the court within two days after the hearing at which the oral denial of the motion was granted. This was done.
Defendant was an attorney who had been representing himself in these proceedings for over seven years. He had a separate attorney [not appellate counsel] represent him at the hearing on the motion for rehearing, which was orally denied, and the subsequent proceedings. In Kash N’Karry Wholesale Supermarkets, Inc. v. Garcia, Fla.App.1969, 221 So.2d 786, the court made the following pertinent comments:
“At the outset, we observe that appellee’s counsel was patently neglectful. As counsel of record he had a continuing duty to make sure of the current status of the case; particularly is this true as to critical time periods the tolling or running of which could affect his client’s substantive rights. In this case, the mere expedient of checking the court records at least once every nine days would have virtually precluded any possibility of being without notice of the entry of the final summary judgment herein until it was too late to petition for rehearing.”
A trial court is vested with discretion to grant relief in some cases to a party desiring to seek review of a final judgment which was rendered without notice or knowledge. Woldarsky v. Woldarsky, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 629.
We do not find that there has been a clear showing that the trial judge abused his sound judicial discretion in denying the motion for relief and in finding that there was no excusable neglect clearly demonstrated in this cause.
The order herein appealed be and the same is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robert M. Gibson et ux. v. Buice, 381 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…inister them in a manner conducive to the ends of justice.” Rogers v. First National Bank at Winter Park, 232 So. 2d 377, 378 (Fla.1970). Kash N’ Karry Wholesale Supermarkets, Inc. v. Garcia, 221 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969) and Bennett v. Halper, 248 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) are distinguishable from this case because the secretary of the judge in Bennett and the secretary to the opposing counsel in Kash N’ Karry alleged they mailed conformed copies of the judgments to the party seeking to take an appe…
-
Sterling Factors Corp. v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 968 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…take, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, its actions in delaying until the day before the foreclosure sale to seek relief may well have permitted the trial court to exercise its discretion to deny the motion. See, e.g., Bennett v. Halper, 248 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).…
-
Bennett v. Halper, 252 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 1971)…Certiorari denied. 248 So. 2d 522. CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ„ concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Woldarsky v. Woldarsky, 243 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Rash N'Karry Wholesale Supermarkets, Inc. v. Ceasar V. Garcia, 221 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)