Joyner v. Casco

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Joyner v. Casco

882 So. 2d 455, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13039, 2004 WL 1933557

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 1, 2004

DocketNo. 4D03-2689

StatusPublished

This text of 882 So. 2d 455 (Joyner v. Casco) 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

Joyner v. Casco, 882 So. 2d 455, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13039, 2004 WL 1933557 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Dr. William Joyner, and his corporation were defaulted for failure to answer a complaint for medical malprac[456]*456tice. They claim that the defaults were the result of excusable neglect. The trial court took testimony as well as read the depositions submitted for review. The main issue to resolve was whether Joyner was advised by plaintiffs attorney that he did not have to answer the complaint. Reviewing the conflicting evidence presented, the court denied the motion to vacate the default. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate when disputed issues of fact were present. See Trupin v. Wallquist, 605 So.2d 1295, 1296 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). We affirm as to the remaining issues raised.

WARNER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Dr. William Joyner, and his corporation were defaulted for failure to answer a complaint for medical malprac[456]*456tice. They claim that the defaults were the result of excusable neglect. The trial court took testimony as well as read the depositions submitted for review. The main issue to resolve was whether Joyner was advised by plaintiffs attorney that he did not have to answer the complaint. Reviewing the conflicting evidence presented, the court denied the motion to vacate the default. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate when disputed issues of fact were present. See Trupin v. Wallquist, 605 So.2d 1295, 1296 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). We affirm as to the remaining issues raised.

WARNER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

882 So. 2d 455, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13039, 2004 WL 1933557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joyner-v-casco-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack