Dunker v. Calkins

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dunker v. Calkins

691 So. 2d 1090, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6407, 1996 WL 334286

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 19, 1996

DocketNo. 96-161

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 691 So. 2d 1090 (Dunker v. Calkins) 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

Dunker v. Calkins, 691 So. 2d 1090, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6407, 1996 WL 334286 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

John F. Dunker and Waterfront Acres, Inc. appeal a final order dismissing their complaint as a sham. We reverse.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging usury in connection with payments made to defendant/appellee Neil B. Calkins under a promissory note secured by a mortgage. Plaintiffs’ counsel moved to withdraw. At a hearing, the trial court granted the motion and allowed the plaintiffs twenty days within which to obtain new counsel. The trial court then immediately took up the defendant’s pending motion to strike the complaint as a sham, and granted the motion. The case had only been pending five months, and there were no exigent circumstances which required the motion to strike as sham to be heard immediately.

Under prior decisions, the trial court should have deferred action on the motion to strike as sham until plaintiffs obtained substitute counsel. See Buscemi v. 6060 Realty Corp., 654 So.2d 197, 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Castle Club Corp. v. Liberty International, Inc., 598 So.2d 263, 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Hub Financial Corp. v. Olmetti, 465 So.2d 618, 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Behar v. Southeast Banks Trust Co. N.A., 374 So.2d 572, 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert denied, 379 So.2d 202 (Fla.1980). In view of this ruling, we need not reach the other points raised by appellants.

The order under review is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

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

PER CURIAM.

John F. Dunker and Waterfront Acres, Inc. appeal a final order dismissing their complaint as a sham. We reverse.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging usury in connection with payments made to defendant/appellee Neil B. Calkins under a promissory note secured by a mortgage. Plaintiffs’ counsel moved to withdraw. At a hearing, the trial court granted the motion and allowed the plaintiffs twenty days within which to obtain new counsel. The trial court then immediately took up the defendant’s pending motion to strike the complaint as a sham, and granted the motion. The case had only been pending five months, and there were no exigent circumstances which required the motion to strike as sham to be heard immediately.

Under prior decisions, the trial court should have deferred action on the motion to strike as sham until plaintiffs obtained substitute counsel. See Buscemi v. 6060 Realty Corp., 654 So.2d 197, 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Castle Club Corp. v. Liberty International, Inc., 598 So.2d 263, 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Hub Financial Corp. v. Olmetti, 465 So.2d 618, 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Behar v. Southeast Banks Trust Co. N.A., 374 So.2d 572, 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert denied, 379 So.2d 202 (Fla.1980). In view of this ruling, we need not reach the other points raised by appellants.

The order under review is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

691 So. 2d 1090, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6407, 1996 WL 334286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunker-v-calkins-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack