Carroll v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Carroll v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.

508 So. 2d 544, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1488, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8845

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 1987

DocketNo. 86-1590

StatusPublished

This text of 508 So. 2d 544 (Carroll v. Federated Department Stores, 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

Carroll v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., 508 So. 2d 544, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1488, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8845 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellee Federated Department Stores, Inc., d/b/a Burdines, sought recovery for a debt that appellant James Carroll, in a pleading inartfully drawn but timely filed, contended was discharged in bankruptcy. Despite appellant’s objection to the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction, the court entered a final judgment as a sanction for appellant’s failure to attend a deposition. We reverse.

The record discloses that the document substituted for the exhibit attached to the complaint is not related to the allegations in the complaint. Thus, the trial court’s award of the amount stated in the complaint is unsubstantiated. More important, however, is the trial court’s failure to acknowledge and rule upon appellant’s jurisdictional question. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.140(h)(2). Under these circumstances, the imposition of such a severe sanction constituted an abuse of discretion. See Wallraff v. T.G.I. Friday’s, Inc., 490 So.2d 50 (Fla.1986). We therefore reverse the Final Judgment and remand the cause to the trial court to determine the applicability of the discharge in bankruptcy to the pending claims. See Houghton v. Foremost Fin. Servs. Corp., 724 F.2d 112 (10th Cir.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellee Federated Department Stores, Inc., d/b/a Burdines, sought recovery for a debt that appellant James Carroll, in a pleading inartfully drawn but timely filed, contended was discharged in bankruptcy. Despite appellant’s objection to the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction, the court entered a final judgment as a sanction for appellant’s failure to attend a deposition. We reverse.

The record discloses that the document substituted for the exhibit attached to the complaint is not related to the allegations in the complaint. Thus, the trial court’s award of the amount stated in the complaint is unsubstantiated. More important, however, is the trial court’s failure to acknowledge and rule upon appellant’s jurisdictional question. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.140(h)(2). Under these circumstances, the imposition of such a severe sanction constituted an abuse of discretion. See Wallraff v. T.G.I. Friday’s, Inc., 490 So.2d 50 (Fla.1986). We therefore reverse the Final Judgment and remand the cause to the trial court to determine the applicability of the discharge in bankruptcy to the pending claims. See Houghton v. Foremost Fin. Servs. Corp., 724 F.2d 112 (10th Cir.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

508 So. 2d 544, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1488, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroll-v-federated-department-stores-inc-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack