Equity Capital Co. v. 601 West 26 Corp.

223 So. 2d 762, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5723
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 10, 1969
DocketNo. 68-1074
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 223 So. 2d 762 (Equity Capital Co. v. 601 West 26 Corp.) 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
Equity Capital Co. v. 601 West 26 Corp., 223 So. 2d 762, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5723 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Opinion

LILES, WOODIE A., Associate Judge.

Plaintiff has appealed the dismissal of its motion for deficiency decree in a mortgage foreclosure suit. On motion by defendants, the trial judge denied plaintiff’s motion on the ground that plaintiff had failed to take any affirmative action for a period in excess of one year as required by Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(e), 30 F.S.A.

The dismissal must be reversed because plaintiff had resumed activity in this case before any action was taken to invoke the provisions of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(e). On May 16, 1967, a mandate of this court was filed in the lower court. No further action was taken in this case until plaintiff filed its motion for deficiency decree on July 29, 1968, more than one year later. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on September 18, 1968, along with their answer and defenses to plaintiff’s motion.

Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(e) is not self-executing. The moving party must seek dismissal prior to resumption of affirmative action toward prosecution of the case. Pollock v. Pollack, Fla.1959, 116 So.2d 761; Beigel v. Simon, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 473; Passio v. Crowell, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 877; Knowles v. Gilbert, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 660.

Since defendants did not move for dismissal prior to July 29, 1968, the date plaintiff filed its motion for deficiency decree, and the court did not dismiss this suit on its own motion prior to that date, dismissal for failure to prosecute was improper.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Noughton v. Hooker
941 So. 2d 1176 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Yeargan v. Arrow Air, Inc.
561 So. 2d 354 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Garland v. Southeastern Palm Beach County Hospital Taxing District
526 So. 2d 725 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
City of Miami v. Katz
498 So. 2d 635 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Barnes v. ESCAMBIA CTY EMPLOYEES CU
488 So. 2d 879 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Overseas Development, Inc. v. Amerifirst Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
433 So. 2d 587 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Overseas Dev., Inc. v. AMERIFIRST FED. S & L ASS'N
433 So. 2d 587 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Industrial Trucks of Florida v. Gonzalez
351 So. 2d 744 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Centro Benefico Latinoamerican, Inc. v. Ramos
342 So. 2d 850 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Chrysler Leasing Corporation v. Passacantilli
259 So. 2d 1 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
223 So. 2d 762, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/equity-capital-co-v-601-west-26-corp-fladistctapp-1969.