City of Ocala v. Heath

CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtCOWART; UPCHURCH, C.J., and ORFINGER
CitationCity of Ocala v. Heath, 518 So.2d 325, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2828 (Fla. App. 1987)
Decision Date10 December 1987
Docket NumberNo. 87-915,87-915
Parties12 Fla. L. Weekly 2828 The CITY OF OCALA, Florida, et al., Appellants, v. Bonnie M. HEATH, et al., Appellees.

Seymour H. Rowland, Jr. and Frank C. Lawson, Ocala, for appellants.

Charles R. Forman and Mary Catherine Haupt of Atkins, Krehl & Forman, Ocala, for appellees.

COWART, Judge.

This appeal considers the definition of excusable neglect as a ground for vacating or setting aside a judgment, decree, or order pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(1).

Heath retained an attorney to bring an action against the City of Ocala. The complaint was dismissed and Heath was given twenty days to amend. Heath's counsel failed to amend and an order was entered dismissing Heath's complaint with prejudice for failure to amend within the time provided.

Five months later, Heath obtained new counsel and, pursuant to Rule 1.540(b), filed a motion to vacate the order of dismissal alleging excusable neglect resulting from the serious illness of Heath's former counsel. According to the affidavit of former counsel's physician, during his representation of Heath former counsel was receiving medications which "caused him to have lapses of memory and have effectively precluded him from the practice of law" and former counsel's "ability to think clearly has been greatly limited and his attention span has been very short." The trial court vacated the order of dismissal and permitted amendment of the original complaint. We affirm.

Former counsel's illness, from which he died shortly after the motion to vacate was filed, combined with the adverse effects of the medication he was taking, makes his neglect of Heath's action "excusable" and justifies relief under Rule 1.540(b). Cf. Rogers v. First National Bank at Winter Park, 232 So.2d 377 (Fla.1970) (trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant motion to vacate dismissal order where plaintiffs' counsel had been in poor health and had secretarial problems). The trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in vacating the order of dismissal. E.g. Jernigan v. Progressive American Insurance Co., 501 So.2d 748 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 513 So.2d 1062 (Fla.1987); Kindle Trucking Co. v. Marmar Corp., 468 So.2d 502 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Church v. Strickland, 382 So.2d 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

AFFIRMED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
3 cases
  • Sammons v. Greenfield
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 19, 2018
    ...principles in mind, we conclude that the Sammons' counsel made a sufficient showing of excusable neglect. See City of Ocala v. Heath, 518 So. 2d 325, 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (finding that counsel's illness combined with the effects of his medication made his neglect excusable). Therefore, w......
  • Sammons v. Adam Greenfield, D.O.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 8, 2019
    ...principles in mind, we conclude that the Sammons' counsel made a sufficient showing of excusable neglect. See City of Ocala v. Heath, 518 So. 2d 325, 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (finding that counsel's illness combined with the effects of his medication made his neglect excusable).1 Therefore, ......
  • Holsapple v. Ducker, No. 98-1261
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 23, 1998
    ...Appellees, the Duckers. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Rogers v. First Nat. Bank at Winter Park, 232 So.2d 377 (Fla.1970); City of Ocala v. Heath, 518 So.2d 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). GRIFFIN, C.J., and DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., ...