Smith v. Crumm

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Smith v. Crumm

778 So. 2d 1088, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2460, 2001 WL 219245

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 7, 2001

DocketNo. 4D00-796

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 778 So. 2d 1088 (Smith v. Crumm) 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

Smith v. Crumm, 778 So. 2d 1088, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2460, 2001 WL 219245 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

WARNER, C.J.

We reverse the order of the trial court dismissing appellant’s complaint for failure to substitute parties pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.260(a). Appellant filed suit against the defendant, only to discover that the defendant was deceased. Thereafter, several requests to extend the time for service of the defendant were granted by the court in order for appellant to secure the appointment of a personal representative of the decedent’s estate in Tennessee. That was accomplished, and the estate was served with process on May 7, 1999, within the time parameters of the last order extending time to effect service. However, the complaint was still styled in the name of the deceased as defendant, even though the deceased had never been made a party to the suit through service. Not until September 28, 1999, did appellant file a motion for substitution of parties, move to “substitute” the estate for the defendant, and file an amended complaint.

[1089]*1089We think it is axiomatic that where there has been no party brought before the court upon whom the court has acquired jurisdiction, there can be no “substitution” for that party. The only entity that was served with process and over which the court had jurisdiction in this case was the estate of the deceased. There was no need to “substitute” a new “party” for the deceased because the deceased had never become a party to the suit. At most, what occurred was a misnomer in the complaint which should have been corrected by amending the style to show that the party was the estate of the decedent, rather than the decedent himself. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.190(e). As no prejudice has been shown to the estate in later correcting the complaint to name the original party served, we conclude that the court erred in dismissing the complaint pursuant to rule 1.260(a). Cf. City of Jacksonville v. Raulerson, 415 So.2d 1303, 1304-5 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

Reversed.

FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

WARNER, C.J.

We reverse the order of the trial court dismissing appellant’s complaint for failure to substitute parties pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.260(a). Appellant filed suit against the defendant, only to discover that the defendant was deceased. Thereafter, several requests to extend the time for service of the defendant were granted by the court in order for appellant to secure the appointment of a personal representative of the decedent’s estate in Tennessee. That was accomplished, and the estate was served with process on May 7, 1999, within the time parameters of the last order extending time to effect service. However, the complaint was still styled in the name of the deceased as defendant, even though the deceased had never been made a party to the suit through service. Not until September 28, 1999, did appellant file a motion for substitution of parties, move to “substitute” the estate for the defendant, and file an amended complaint.

[1089]*1089We think it is axiomatic that where there has been no party brought before the court upon whom the court has acquired jurisdiction, there can be no “substitution” for that party. The only entity that was served with process and over which the court had jurisdiction in this case was the estate of the deceased. There was no need to “substitute” a new “party” for the deceased because the deceased had never become a party to the suit. At most, what occurred was a misnomer in the complaint which should have been corrected by amending the style to show that the party was the estate of the decedent, rather than the decedent himself. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.190(e). As no prejudice has been shown to the estate in later correcting the complaint to name the original party served, we conclude that the court erred in dismissing the complaint pursuant to rule 1.260(a). Cf. City of Jacksonville v. Raulerson, 415 So.2d 1303, 1304-5 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

Reversed.

FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

778 So. 2d 1088, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2460, 2001 WL 219245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-crumm-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack