Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

December 18, 2015 by admin

Civil procedure — Dismissal — Error to deny motion to vacate dismissal entered upon counsel’s failure to appear at trial without conducting evidentiary hearing or considering appropriate factors set forth in Kozel v. Ostendorf — Excusable neglect

40 Fla. L. Weekly D2775aTop of Form

Civil
procedure — Dismissal — Error to deny motion to vacate dismissal entered upon
counsel’s failure to appear at trial without conducting evidentiary hearing or
considering appropriate factors set forth in Kozel v. Ostendorf —
Excusable neglect — Motion stated colorful claim for relief where motion
explained that counsel failed to appear at trial because employee saved trial
notice to wrong computer file — Remand for evidentiary hearing and
consideration of Kozel factors

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK, as
Trustee for the Certificate Holders CWABS INC., Asset-Backed Certificates,
Series 2006-23, Appellant, v. MICHAEL DEPIERO and JOYCE DEPIERO, Appellees. 1st
District. Case No. 1D15-3065. Opinion filed December 16, 2015. An appeal from
the Circuit Court for Clay County. Frederic A. Buttner, Judge. Counsel:
Nicholas R. Cavallaro of Gilbert Garcia Group, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Thomas R. Pycraft, Jr., John J. Spence, David D. Naples, Jr., and Michael J.
Pelkowski of Pycraft Law LLC, St. Augustine, for Appellees.

(PER CURIAM.) This is an appeal of an order denying
Appellant’s motion to vacate a final judgment of dismissal without prejudice.
Appellant argues the trial court erred in denying the motion to vacate without
conducting an evidentiary hearing or considering the appropriate factors set
forth in Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993). We agree and
reverse the order denying the motion to vacate.

In its motion to vacate the dismissal, Appellant explained
that counsel failed to appear at trial because an employee saved the trial
notice to the wrong computer file. The motion was supported by various
documents and three sworn affidavits. Courts have consistently found excusable
neglect where an attorney fails to appear at a hearing due to secretarial
error. See Elliot v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, 31 So. 3d 304
(Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“Excusable neglect is found ‘where inaction results from
clerical or secretarial error, reasonable misunderstanding, a system gone awry
or any other of the foibles to which human nature is heir.’ ”) (quoting Somero
v. Hendry Gen. Hosp.
, 467 So. 2d 1103, 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)); Wilson
v. Woodward
, 602 So. 2d 547, 548-49 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (finding excusable
neglect where secretary for the moving party’s lawyer failed to calendar the
hearing); see also J.J.K. Intern., Inc. v. Shivbaran, 985 So. 2d
66, 68-69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (finding excusable neglect where lawyer’s failure
to appear for hearing was due to error by secretary in marking the hearing
“cancelled” on calendar). Because the motion alleged a colorable claim for
relief, Appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the motion. See
Chancey v. Chancey, 880 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“If a rule 1.540
motion alleges a colorable entitlement to relief, the circuit court should
conduct a limited evidentiary hearing on the motion”).

The trial court’s order dismissing the action provided no
written findings other than to state that Appellant received notice of the
trial and failed to appear. Failure to apply the Kozel factors
constitutes reversible error and requires remand for application of the correct
standard. See BACHome Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Ellison, 141 So.
3d 1290, 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). The Court has explained that “[e]xpress
findings are required to ensure that the trial judge has consciously determined
that the failure was more than a mistake, neglect, or inadvertence, and to
assist the reviewing court to the extent the record is susceptible to more than
one interpretation.” Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492, 496 (Fla. 2004) (citing
Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271 (Fla.
1990)); see also Smith v. City of Panama City, 951 So. 2d 959,
962 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing and
consideration of the Kozel factors.

REVERSED AND REMANDED. (LEWIS, SWANSON, and WINOKUR, JJ.,
CONCUR.)

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982