Schmidt v. Lichtman

Florida Circuit Courts

Schmidt v. Lichtman

15 Fla. Supp. 2d 95

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedJanuary 27, 1986

DocketCase No. 85-110-AP

StatusPublished

This text of 15 Fla. Supp. 2d 95 (Schmidt v. Lichtman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schmidt v. Lichtman, 15 Fla. Supp. 2d 95 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Defendant below, appeals the summary denial of his written Motion for Continuance based upon a current hospitalized illness.

There is no question that the trial Court has broad discretion over the matter of continuances in the conduct of its trial calendar. Diaz v. Diaz, 258 So.2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).

[96]*96There is no question as to the denial of due process where the defendant is unable or incapable of appearing and defending an action as a result of a present physical infirmity, as in the case at bar.

This matter was filed on the 27th day of December, 1984 with a hearing date of February 8, 1985, and a trial date of March 6, 1985. A Motion for Continuance was filed by the defendant’s attorney, based upon the defendant’s current hospitalization. The trial Court summarily denied the continuance notwithstanding the absence of any controverting affidavit and proceeded to trial, wherein judgment was entered against the defendant.

It was manifestly unjust to the defendant, Stanley Schmidt, to have been denied his original Motion for Continuance, Ford v. Ford, 8 So.2d 495 (Fla. 1942), where there was no direct prejudice to the plaintiff, as established in this case.

The Judgment is REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial in accordance with this decision.

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