Burke Co. v. United States Telephone Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Burke Co. v. United States Telephone Co.

571 So. 2d 33, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7418, 1990 WL 143655

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 2, 1990

DocketNo. 90-1167

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 571 So. 2d 33 (Burke Co. v. United States Telephone Co.) 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

Burke Co. v. United States Telephone Co., 571 So. 2d 33, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7418, 1990 WL 143655 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We conclude, contrary to the position of appellant The Burke Company, that a trial court has discretion in the application of Rule 1.060(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Here, defendant Burke successfully moved for a transfer of venue under Rule 1.060. Under Rule 1.060(c), plaintiff United States Telephone Company was obliged to pay the clerk’s service charge within thirty days but inadvertently failed to do so. The charge was promptly paid as soon as U.S. Telephone learned it was overdue. Burke contends that the trial court was nonetheless required to dismiss without prejudice under Rule 1.060(c), given that the payment was late. We disagree. The court had discretion in the matter. There is not the slightest suggestion of prejudice to Burke, and the position taken by the trial court is consistent with the admonition that the “rules shall be construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.010.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We conclude, contrary to the position of appellant The Burke Company, that a trial court has discretion in the application of Rule 1.060(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Here, defendant Burke successfully moved for a transfer of venue under Rule 1.060. Under Rule 1.060(c), plaintiff United States Telephone Company was obliged to pay the clerk’s service charge within thirty days but inadvertently failed to do so. The charge was promptly paid as soon as U.S. Telephone learned it was overdue. Burke contends that the trial court was nonetheless required to dismiss without prejudice under Rule 1.060(c), given that the payment was late. We disagree. The court had discretion in the matter. There is not the slightest suggestion of prejudice to Burke, and the position taken by the trial court is consistent with the admonition that the “rules shall be construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.010.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

571 So. 2d 33, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7418, 1990 WL 143655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burke-co-v-united-states-telephone-co-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack