Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, 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 Are Available to Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Blog
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Elisabeth K. Eubanks
  • Links
  • Contact Us

December 18, 2015 by Tom

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

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Automobile — Insurer who filed a claim under her automobile insurance policy after her vehicle was damaged in an accident sued insurer claiming breach of policy after insured declared the vehicle a total loss and paid her what it deemed the actual cash value of vehicle — Breach of contract — Insurer was entitled to summary judgment on claim that insurer breached the policy by using an illegal methodology to calculate actual cash value — District court did not err in ruling insurer’s methodology for calculating actual cash value complied with Florida law — As matter of first impression, Section 626.9743(5), Florida Statutes, which provides that, in calculating “actual cash value” of insured’s vehicle based on actual cost to purchase comparable motor vehicle “derived from … two or more comparable motor vehicles available [in local market area] within the preceding 90 days,” did not require that “actual cash value” equal actual cost to purchase comparable vehicle — Insurer’s use of the Uniform Condition Adjustment, advertised prices of comparable motor vehicles, and the Certified Collateral Corporation ONE Market Valuation system to calculate the actual cash value of insured’s vehicle complied with Florida statute — Statute did not require that insurer use “retail cost as determined from generally recognized motor vehicle industry source” if it utilized one of other two statutory alternative methods for determining cost to purchase comparable motor vehicle — Insurer was entitled to summary judgment on claim that it breached the policy by failing to pay, as part of vehicle’s actual cash value, dealer fees incurred in purchasing replacement vehicle — Insurer was not required to pay insured’s out-of-pocket dealer fees — Under Florida and Eleventh Circuit law, “actual cash value” in an insurance policy means replacement cost less depreciation, and replacement cost includes dealer fees if the policyholder is reasonably likely to need to incur dealer fees — Insured failed to satisfy the standard for inclusion of dealer fees in replacement cost where insured showed a reasonable likelihood that she would incur dealer fees if she chose to purchase her replacement vehicle from a dealer and that a policyholder is reasonably likely to purchase a replacement vehicle from a dealer, but failed to show that a policyholder is reasonably likely to need to purchase a replacement vehicle from a dealer
  • Torts — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Action alleging that vibration from defendant’s installation of sheet piles during construction on its parcel caused damage to plaintiff’s building — Trial court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion to amend its complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages based on allegation of gross negligence where plaintiff did not make required evidentiary showing to support such a claim — Report produced by third-party contractor warning defendant against the use of large vibratory compaction equipment in construction project, when read together with contractor’s deposition testimony, offered no evidentiary support for plaintiff’s claim that contractor warned defendant against using vibratory equipment in installation of sheet piles — Plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit, which drew illogical conclusions from contractor’s report, offered no support for gross negligence claim
  • Torts — Premises liability — Malls — Dangerous condition — Landscaping features — Vicarious liability — Action against operator of mall arising from injuries plaintiff suffered after stepping into a hole or depression in a raised landscape area which separated mall’s parking lot from the sidewalk that led to mall’s entrance — No error in entering summary judgment in favor of defendant because, as a matter of law, the landscaped area was not a dangerous condition — Evidence that a few people had walked across the landscaped area to get to the sidewalk was not sufficient to create a duty where there was no evidence that the grass bed had become a well-trampled footpath or that the grass bed has been in continuous and obvious use as a pedestrian shortcut such that defendant was put on constructive notice of the condition — Defendant cannot be held vicariously liable for condition created by landscapers where landscapers were not found liable
  • Torts — Automobile accident — Permanent injury — Causation — Trial court improperly directed verdict on causation given conflicting evidence which would have permitted reasonable jury to conclude that plaintiff had a pre-existing back injury caused by weight training or prior participation in competitive crew rowing
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Vandalism — Trial court erred by denying insurer’s motion for directed verdict where policy limited coverage to insured’s “residence premises,” and insured did not “reside” at the property at the time of loss — Fact that insured was no longer leasing the property and was intending to move back when property was vandalized does not alter analysis

Blog Archives

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 © 2023 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982