Munoz v. Alvarez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Munoz v. Alvarez

774 So. 2d 801, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16629, 2000 WL 1854070

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 20, 2000

DocketNo. 3D00-473

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 774 So. 2d 801 (Munoz v. Alvarez) 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

Munoz v. Alvarez, 774 So. 2d 801, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16629, 2000 WL 1854070 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The plaintiffs appeal from an order dismissing their malpractice case because of a supposed violation of a court order to secure replacement counsel or give notice of their desire not to do so. See Kreiser Constr., Inc. v. Trafford, 699 So.2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Because the order does not, as required, state that the claimed noncompliance was willful or deliberate, see Walden v. Adekola, 773 So.2d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Visoly v. Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan & Berlin, P.A., 707 So.2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) and, more important, because the circumstances revealed by the record show, as a matter of law, that no such finding could be properly rendered or sustained, see Commonwealth Fed. Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So.2d 1271 (Fla.1990), the order on appeal is reversed and the cause is remanded for trial.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The plaintiffs appeal from an order dismissing their malpractice case because of a supposed violation of a court order to secure replacement counsel or give notice of their desire not to do so. See Kreiser Constr., Inc. v. Trafford, 699 So.2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Because the order does not, as required, state that the claimed noncompliance was willful or deliberate, see Walden v. Adekola, 773 So.2d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Visoly v. Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan & Berlin, P.A., 707 So.2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) and, more important, because the circumstances revealed by the record show, as a matter of law, that no such finding could be properly rendered or sustained, see Commonwealth Fed. Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So.2d 1271 (Fla.1990), the order on appeal is reversed and the cause is remanded for trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

774 So. 2d 801, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16629, 2000 WL 1854070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/munoz-v-alvarez-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack