Harris v. Filmon

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harris v. Filmon

358 So. 2d 905, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15646

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 19, 1978

DocketNo. 77-1947

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 358 So. 2d 905 (Harris v. Filmon) 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

Harris v. Filmon, 358 So. 2d 905, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15646 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

RYDER, Judge.

This is an appeal from a dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute. Appellant contends the dismissal was improper because she was not afforded prior notice or hearing. We agree and reverse.

On January 10, 1973 appellant and her husband filed a complaint against appellee for damages arising out of an automobile accident. The case eventually went to trial and the jury returned a verdict in favor of appellant on May 3, 1976. The appellant, on May 7,1976, filed a motion for new trial alleging the damages awarded were grossly inadequate. This motion was denied on June 30, 1976. Months later, on November 2, 1977, without prior notice or hearing thereon, the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice.

Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(e) requires notice and a hearing before a case can be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Since the trial court afforded appellant neither notice nor hearing, its order dismissing the case was improper and must be reversed. See Franklin Acceptance Corp. v. Superior Electrical Industries, Inc., 167 So.2d 116 (Fla.3d DCA 1964).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

BOARDMAN, C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.

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

RYDER, Judge.

This is an appeal from a dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute. Appellant contends the dismissal was improper because she was not afforded prior notice or hearing. We agree and reverse.

On January 10, 1973 appellant and her husband filed a complaint against appellee for damages arising out of an automobile accident. The case eventually went to trial and the jury returned a verdict in favor of appellant on May 3, 1976. The appellant, on May 7,1976, filed a motion for new trial alleging the damages awarded were grossly inadequate. This motion was denied on June 30, 1976. Months later, on November 2, 1977, without prior notice or hearing thereon, the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice.

Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(e) requires notice and a hearing before a case can be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Since the trial court afforded appellant neither notice nor hearing, its order dismissing the case was improper and must be reversed. See Franklin Acceptance Corp. v. Superior Electrical Industries, Inc., 167 So.2d 116 (Fla.3d DCA 1964).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

BOARDMAN, C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 So. 2d 905, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-filmon-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack