WINIFRED CLARK, APPELLANT,
v.
SUNCOAST PEACH CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Winifred Clark appealed a summary judgment entered against her in an ejectment action after she failed to appear at a pretrial conference. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that while the trial judge had discretion to sanction Clark's absence, striking her answer and entering summary judgment was an abuse of discretion that improperly denied her right to trial.
Yes. While the trial court did not condone the defendant's failure to appear, it abused its discretion by choosing summary judgment as the sanction, as this penalty denied the defendant her right to trial. The trial court had other available remedies, such as citing the defendant for contempt or assessing costs.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by striking a defendant's answer and entering summary judgment for failing to appear at a pretrial conference when the defendant's act…
[2] A trial court has multiple remedies for a party's failure to appear at a pretrial conference, including citing for contempt or assessing costs, rather than striking the p…
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 use of the procedure followed here penalizes litigants in such a way as to deny them their right to trial.”
The court's central holding that summary judgment was an abuse of discretion because it completely deprived the defendant of her right to trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSuncoast Peach Corporation brought an ejectment action against Clark. Clark filed an amended answer and counterclaim. A pretrial conference was schedu…
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 Right To Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
Suncoast Peach Corporation brought an action in ejectment against Winifred Clark. After appellant Clark filed her amended answer and counterclaim issue was joined. The trial judge then set the cause for pretrial conference. Prior to the date of the pre-trial conference, appellant fired her then attorney and the pre-trial conference-was continued until September 7, 1971. Prior to this pre-trial conference, the appellant again discharged her latest attorney. The pre-trial conference was set for 9:00 A.M., and her attorney was present; but since she had orally fired him on September 3, 1971, the trial judge allowed him to withdraw without going forth in representing the defendant at the September 7 pre-trial conference. Defendant herself showed up at 10:00 A.M. on September 7, thinking the pre-trial conference was to be held at that hour. The trial judge then entered his order striking defendant’s answer and entered a summary judgment in favor of appellee. Appellant then filed a motion for rehearing which motion was denied. This appeal ensued.
Appellant urges that the trial court erred in dismissing appellant’s defenses and granting a summary judgment on the pleadings in favor of appellee for the reason that appellant failed twice to show up for the pre-trial conference. We reverse on the authority of Tsavaris v. Tsavaris, Fla.App.1971, 244 So.2d 450.
We hasten to point out that we do not condone a party’s ignoring or disobey-in a trial court’s order. We do not believe that appellant arbitrarily disobeyed the court’s order in this instance. The use of the procedure followed here penalizes litigants in such a way as to deny them their right to trial. The judge could have cited the appellant for contempt; or he could have assessed the costs of the pre-trial conference against her. Suffice it to say, he had several remedies; and the one he chose was an abuse of his discretion.
In passing, we also add that appellee may indeed be entitled to summary judgment; but the reason for granting the summary judgment in this instance is incorrect.
We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whiteside v. Whiteside, 468 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…o deprive either of the parties of the right to have their claims adjudicated onthe merits as a sanction for contempt. Third, Florida cases distinguish contempt sanctions from dismissal or entry of a default. In Clark v. Suncoast Peach Corporation, 263 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), the trial court dismissed the defendant’s defenses and entered summary judgment for the plaintiff because the defendant twice failed to appear for pretrial conference. In reversing, the appellate court noted that instead of denyi…
-
Blanco v. Allstate Ins. Co., 561 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…lity & Guar. Co. v. Herr, 539 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); J.B. Muros Corp. v. International Mall, Inc., 534 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Livingston v. State, Dept. of Corrections, 481 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Clark v. Suncoast Peach Corp., 263 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972). Reversed and remanded.…
-
Skyway Trap & Skeet Club, Inc. v. Sw. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 854 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…oper scope of sanctions imposed for civil contempt. Dismissals and default judgments are improper contempt sanctions. Whiteside v. Whiteside, 468 So. 2d 407, 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (relying on this court’s decision in Clark v. Suncoast Peach Corp., 263 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)). “One may not be barred forever from protecting one’s life, liberty or property simply for being disobedient or contumacious.” Whiteside, 468 So. 2d at 409. “Other adequate and more suitable forms of punishment, within constituti…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bush v. Kilpatrick, 244 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Tsavaris v. Tsavaris, 244 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)