Estate of Schafer ex rel. Schafer v. Schafer

582 So. 2d 121, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6123, 1991 WL 116869
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 2, 1991
DocketNo. 91-585
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 582 So. 2d 121 (Estate of Schafer ex rel. Schafer v. Schafer) 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
Estate of Schafer ex rel. Schafer v. Schafer, 582 So. 2d 121, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6123, 1991 WL 116869 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael Schafer appeals from an order dismissing a wrongful death action for failure to perfect service of process within 120 days of filing suit. For the following reason, we reverse.

On October 12, 1990, Michael Schafer filed his complaint for wrongful death. On February 1, 1991, Julie Schafer moved to dismiss1 Mr. Schafer’s complaint against her pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Proce[122]*122dure 1.070(j).2 Service of process was effected on Julie Schafer on February 12, 1991, four days after the expiration of the 120-day period, but prior to the hearing on her motion to dismiss.

Following the hearing on Ms. Schafer’s motion to dismiss, the trial court entered an order pursuant to Rule 1.070(j) dismissing the complaint against her.

In Berdeaux v. Eagle-Pieher Inds., Inc., 575 So.2d 1295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), this court held that “the operation of Rule 1.070(j) is analogous to the application of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(c) wherein the law of the State requires a default not be entered, under that rule, if the defendant files its answer at any time prior to the proposed entry of a default.” (Citation omitted.) Because the appellant perfected service of process prior to the hearing on and entry of dismissal, the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint. Id. at 1296; see also Hernandez v. Page, 580 So.2d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (120-day rule intended to be useful tool for docket management, not instrument of oppression).

We recognize that the recent case of Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 578 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), reaches a contrary result. We respectfully certify conflict with that opinion.

Reversed and remanded; conflict certified.

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

Related

Orville Smith v. Alexandra Smith
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2026
Santmyer v. Orange Paving & Construction Co.
589 So. 2d 472 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
582 So. 2d 121, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6123, 1991 WL 116869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-schafer-ex-rel-schafer-v-schafer-fladistctapp-1991.