Mayzell v. Quarles & Brady

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mayzell v. Quarles & Brady

744 So. 2d 1073, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12502, 1999 WL 743706

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 22, 1999

DocketNo. 98-3672

StatusPublished

This text of 744 So. 2d 1073 (Mayzell v. Quarles & Brady) 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

Mayzell v. Quarles & Brady, 744 So. 2d 1073, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12502, 1999 WL 743706 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

GLICKSTEIN, Senior Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment in favor of appellee. We affirm.

The parties agree that the trial court erred in striking as untimely the affidavits filed in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. How the error occurred is unexplained in light of the plain language of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c) which permits delivery of such opposing affidavits prior to 5:00 p.m. two business days prior to hearing on the motion.

Unlike Goldstein v. Wortmann, 712 So.2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), however, appellee in this case has presented the argument that notwithstanding the trial court’s erroneously striking the affidavits, the error was harmless. We agree.

POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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