Noel v. Schoninger

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Noel v. Schoninger

488 So. 2d 153, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1131, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7784

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 13, 1986

DocketNo. 85-1547

StatusPublished

This text of 488 So. 2d 153 (Noel v. Schoninger) 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

Noel v. Schoninger, 488 So. 2d 153, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1131, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7784 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant Isabella Noel appeals from a final default judgment entered in favor of the plaintiffs, Bernard and Howard Schoninger, partners in Schoninger Enterprises. We reverse.

The record reflects and it is undisputed that the medical condition of Noel’s husband was grave. It further appears without dispute that, among other deficiencies, counsel for Noel failed to notify her of at least one of her scheduled depositions. Though we appreciate the court’s frustration, the sanction of striking the pleadings and entering a default is too severe where there is no dispute that the reasons for Noel’s nonattendance were her husband’s illness and her counsel’s failure to notify her. See Beasley v. Girten, 61 So.2d 179 (Fla.1952); Livingston v. State, Department of Corrections, 481 So.2d 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Lazare v. Weiss, 437 So.2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Summit Chase Condominium Association v. Protean Investors, Inc., 421 So.2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Zayres Department Stores v. Fingerhut, 383 So.2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

We reverse and remand to the trial court with instructions to reinstate Noel’s counterclaim and her answer. On remand, plaintiff may apply for, and the trial court may impose, less severe sanctions for the discovery abuses. Zayres Department Stores, 383 So.2d at 266.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant Isabella Noel appeals from a final default judgment entered in favor of the plaintiffs, Bernard and Howard Schoninger, partners in Schoninger Enterprises. We reverse.

The record reflects and it is undisputed that the medical condition of Noel’s husband was grave. It further appears without dispute that, among other deficiencies, counsel for Noel failed to notify her of at least one of her scheduled depositions. Though we appreciate the court’s frustration, the sanction of striking the pleadings and entering a default is too severe where there is no dispute that the reasons for Noel’s nonattendance were her husband’s illness and her counsel’s failure to notify her. See Beasley v. Girten, 61 So.2d 179 (Fla.1952); Livingston v. State, Department of Corrections, 481 So.2d 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Lazare v. Weiss, 437 So.2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Summit Chase Condominium Association v. Protean Investors, Inc., 421 So.2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Zayres Department Stores v. Fingerhut, 383 So.2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

We reverse and remand to the trial court with instructions to reinstate Noel’s counterclaim and her answer. On remand, plaintiff may apply for, and the trial court may impose, less severe sanctions for the discovery abuses. Zayres Department Stores, 383 So.2d at 266.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

488 So. 2d 153, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1131, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noel-v-schoninger-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack