Linthicum v. Berry

532 So. 2d 97, 1988 WL 107396
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 19, 1988·No. 88-128·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

532 So.2d 97 (1988)

Barbara M. LINTHICUM, Appellant,
v.
John S. BERRY, Appellee.

No. 88-128.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

October 19, 1988.

Barbara M. Linthicum, Tallahassee, in pro. per.

Forrest K. Clinard of Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe, & Benton, P.A., Tallahassee, for appellee.

*98 PER CURIAM.

On the record we have before us, the allegations contained in appellant's motion, styled "for rehearing," set out a sufficient basis for relief from judgment, in that appellant alleged that, without her knowledge, her attorney failed to appear at a noticed hearing or otherwise represent her. The record discloses that her attorney never withdrew as her counsel. See Fla.Bar R.Prof.Conduct, Rules 4-1.3, 4-1.4, 4-1.16. The cause is therefore remanded to the trial court in order that appellant be given an opportunity to defend appellee's motion for fees, in that it appears prima facie that she has a meritorious defense.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ERVIN, WENTWORTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

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

Linthicum v. Berry, 532 So. 2d 97, 1988 WL 107396 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

532 So. 2d 97 (Linthicum v. Berry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lawson v. Diehlman
769 So. 2d 488 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Burke v. Reyes
687 So. 2d 929 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Love v. Gruner
658 So. 2d 1180 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Bickel v. Richard & Pamela Mabry, Inc.
558 So. 2d 178 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)