Continental Ins. Co. v. Employers' Fire Ins. Co., 73--116
| Decision Date | 27 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--116,73--116 |
| Parties | CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. EMPLOYERS' FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, and Elmer Riley, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard M. Gale, and Ronald P. Ponzoli, and Sherouse & Virgin, Miami, for appellant.
James A. Franklin, Jr., Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, Fort Myers, for appellees.
Appellant insurance company brought suit for indemnity and contribution stemming from two judgments entered against it in an automobile accident case. Appellees raised the five-year Statute of Limitations which governs this type action. 1 The trial judge entered summary judgment in favor of appellees, holding that the statute had run. We reverse.
The sole question here is whether the statute began to run from the signing of a Minute Book entry on December 12, 1966, in which case the present action is barred, or began to run on November 8, 1967 when the subject judgments were reduced to separate writings, signed and made a matter of record.
Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 1.3, F.A.R., 32 F.S.A. a judgment is 'rendered' for purposes of being final when it is reduced to writing, signed and made a matter of record. There is some question in the minds of some whether a signed Minute Book entry, if otherwise sufficient, satisfies this requirement. We need not decide that here because, in any case, even if it does the Minute Book entry herein simply doesn't satisfy the requisites of a 'judgment.' After the verdicts were recorded in the Minute Book the following entry appears under date of December 12, 1966:
'Court recessed.
Court reopened on its own motion and found and rendered Judgment on the Verdicts.
The Court ordered Plaintiff's Exhibits Nos. 14, 15 and 16 returned to the Plaintiff.
Court recessed.
/s/ Harold S. Smith
Circuit Judge'
This entry is substantially the same as that considered by our Supreme Court in Catchings v. Florida-McCracken Concrete Pipe Co. 2 In that case the entry reads:
'The Court having directed a verdict for Defendant herein on December 20th, and said Jury having returned a verdict for Defendant, judgment is hereby rendered herein for the Defendant above named.'
The court held:
'This may be regarded as an order that an appropriate judgment for the defendant be duly entered, But it is not such a final judgment as will support a writ of error.' (Italics ours.)
A 'judgment' for a plaintiff in an action for money damages ought at least recite as the order and judgment of the court the amount in the verdict of the court or jury, and, while perhaps its omission is not fatal, it should further authorize the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Walsh
...678 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). See also DuBreuil v. Regnvall, 527 So.2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), and Continental Insurance Co. v. Employers' Fire Insurance Co., 292 So.2d 413, 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). Under this case law, "a final judgment is one that determines the rights of the parties and dispose......
-
Meadows Development Co. v. Ihle
...details characteristically found in adjudicatory writings signed by a judge and filed with the clerk. Continental Ins. Co. v. Employers' Fire Ins. Co., 292 So.2d 413 (Fla.2d DCA 1974). The judgment in the case before us was reduced to writing, signed by a circuit judge and filed by the cler......
- Employers' Fire Ins. Co. v. Continental Ins. Co.