Bartlett Const., Inc. v. Coastal Plains, Inc., 76-1961

Decision Date27 December 1977
Docket NumberNo. 76-1961,76-1961
PartiesBARTLETT CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellant, v. COASTAL PLAINS, INC. and Florida Mining and Materials Corp., Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Richard C. Carter, Miami, for appellant.

Bradford, Williams, McKay, Kimbrell, Hamann & Jennings and Reginald L. Williams, Donald M. Coon, Miami, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ.

HENDRY, Chief Judge.

Appellant, plaintiff below, appeals from a summary final judgment rendered in favor of appellees, defendants below.

Appellant firstly contends that the trial court erred in rendering summary judgment at pre-trial conference in that the twenty (20) day notice requirement found in both Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.200(b) and 1.510(c), pertaining to pre-trial conferences and summary judgments, respectively, had not been observed by the court. Secondly, appellant contends that there existed certain genuine issues of material fact precluding the rendition of summary judgment.

As for appellant's first point, a review of the record discloses that the trial court, by order dated September 8, 1976, scheduled the pre-trial conference for September 17, 1976. The record is, however, devoid of any objection voiced by appellant concerning the premature scheduling of the conference. In that (1) the notice requirement of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c) is not jurisdictional, (2) appellant failed to object to the abbreviated time span and (3) implicit in every pre-trial conference is the possibility that summary judgment might be rendered, appellant's contention must be rejected. Roberts v. Braynon, 90 So.2d 623 (Fla.1956); Blatch v. Wesley, 238 So.2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), cert. den., 240 So.2d 645 (Fla.1970); Raphael v. Koretzky, 102 So.2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958).

Appellant's second contention must be likewise rejected in that, by virtue of the record placed before this court, there are no genuine issues of material fact left unresolved by the proceedings below and it conclusively appears that appellees are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c).

Accordingly, after carefully reviewing the record, all points raised in the briefs and arguments of counsel, it is our opinion that the final judgment appealed from must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Wong v. Crown Equipment Corp.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 28, 1996
    ...Fuller v. General Motors Corp., 353 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 361 So.2d 832 (Fla.1978); Bartlett Constr., Inc. v. Coastal Plains, Inc., 353 So.2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); cf. Locke v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 509 So.2d 1375 (Fla. 1st DCA Second, the plaintiff contends th......
  • Hutchinson v. Miller
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 14, 1989
    ...by the appellants. The notice requirement of the rule is not jurisdictional and can be waived. See Bartlett Construction Co, Inc. v. Coastal Plains, Inc., 353 So.2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Bernard Marko & Associates, Inc. v. Steele, 230 So.2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). Moreover, after the pre-t......
  • Robbins v. Department of Natural Resources
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 7, 1985
    ...98 So.2d 490 (Fla.1957); Compass Enterprises, Inc. v. Earls, 397 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Bartlett Construction, Inc. v. Coastal Plains, Inc., 353 So.2d 892 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978). That authority of the trial court is in recognition of the fact that a pretrial conference might progress ......
  • Brewer v. Clerk of Circuit Court, Gadsden County, 98-38
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 4, 1998
    ...981-82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Ultimate Corp. v. CG Data Corp., 575 So.2d 1338, 1339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Bartlett Constr., Inc. v. Coastal Plains, Inc., 353 So.2d 892, 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). In particular, in the 33 pages of transcript from the hearing, appellant's attorney actively argued her......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT