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
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
  • 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

Recent Posts

  • Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Appeal from order awarding attorney’s fees and costs and attorney’s fees for fees incurred in litigating amount of fees reversed in light of appellate court’s reversal of substantive portion of summary judgment on which awards were based and remand with instructions — Reversal is without prejudice to filing new appeal after trial court has concluded its labor
  • Insurance — Property — Insured’s action against insurer — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of insurer where there were factual issues as to insured’s compliance with post-loss obligations and any ensuing prejudice — Remand for further proceedings
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Assignee’s breach of contract action against insurer — Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Insurer was not entitled to summary judgment in its favor after paying post-lawsuit appraisal award within time limit required by the policy where appraisal process confirmed that insurer had wrongly denied paying assignee a specified amount of benefits under the policy — Payment of postsuit appraisal award did not render case moot — Remand for further proceedings on assignee’s claim for attorney’s fees and costs
  • Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Failure to state on the record the reasons for granting motion for summary judgment, as required by amended rule — Remand to allow court an opportunity to state reasons for its decision “with enough specificity to provide useful guidance to the parties and, if necessary, to allow for appellate review”
  • Insurance — Personal injury protection — Presuit demand letter — Presuit demand letter did not comply with statute where amount claimed to be due was not sufficiently precise — Although letter asked insurer to advise plaintiff if demand letter was defective in any way, nothing in language of section 627.736 requires an insurer to give notice to the insured or an assignee that a demand letter is defective

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. Abbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982