Bickel v. Richard & Pamela Mabry, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bickel v. Richard & Pamela Mabry, Inc.

558 So. 2d 178, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1683, 1990 WL 27953

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 16, 1990

DocketNo. 89-00794

StatusPublished

This text of 558 So. 2d 178 (Bickel v. Richard & Pamela Mabry, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bickel v. Richard & Pamela Mabry, Inc., 558 So. 2d 178, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1683, 1990 WL 27953 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the final judgment entered against defendants and remand for a new trial.

Defendants, whose counsel had withdrawn from his representation of them, were not represented by counsel at the trial. They had not been notified of the scheduled hearing on their counsel’s motion to withdraw or of the trial court’s order granting that motion. See Gulf Southwestern Corp., Inc. v. Becker, 489 So.2d 1220 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Grahn v. Dade Home Services, Inc., 277 So.2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). See also Linthicum v. Berry, 532 So.2d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

LEHAN, A.C.J., and PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI