Koscot Interplanetary, Inc. v. Zurich Insurance Co.

580 So. 2d 318, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4794, 1991 WL 87278
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 28, 1991
DocketNo. 90-2135
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 580 So. 2d 318 (Koscot Interplanetary, Inc. v. Zurich Insurance Co.) 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
Koscot Interplanetary, Inc. v. Zurich Insurance Co., 580 So. 2d 318, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4794, 1991 WL 87278 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court’s “Order Granting Third Party Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss”, signed on June 27,1990, finds that “... the court file does contain ...” the letter that appellant’s counsel represented that he had sent to the trial court to remind the trial judge about setting the case for trial dur[319]*319ing the fall of 1989. Despite noting the presence of the said letter, dated September 12, 1989, the trial court’s order dismissing the cause specifically finds that the said letter does not “... qualify as a pleading that would represent file activity ...” which would serve to toll the running of the one-year time period provided for in Rule 1.420(e) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

Despite the fact that the trial court used the word “pleading” in its order, the law is clear that the time periods provided for in the above-cited rule will be tolled by the filing of any paper or document which reflects that the case is being moved forward and being prosecuted. Since the record herein reflects that the court found that the court file did contain the letter, the subsequent finding by the trial court that the said letter did not toll the running of the time period, provided for in the above-cited rule, was erroneous. The order does not contain any finding or language impugning or questioning the authenticity of the letter in question. As a result, the record does not reflect any reason for ignoring the letter when computing the time that transpired in relation to the above-cited rule.

Accordingly, the dismissal entered herein must be reversed with this case being remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Cucos, Inc. v. McDaniel
938 So. 2d 238 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2006)
Cucos, Inc. v. Jerry McDaniel
Mississippi Supreme Court, 2005
Smith v. Broward County
654 So. 2d 1297 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
580 So. 2d 318, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4794, 1991 WL 87278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koscot-interplanetary-inc-v-zurich-insurance-co-fladistctapp-1991.