Travelers Ins. Co. v. Bryson, s. 76--788 and 76--1362

Decision Date07 January 1977
Docket NumberNos. 76--788 and 76--1362,s. 76--788 and 76--1362
Citation341 So.2d 1013
PartiesTRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Daisey Q. BRYSON and Salvatore DeLuca, Appellees. Daisey Q. BRYSON, Petitioner, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

William R. Scherer, Druck, Grimmett, Norman, Weaver & Scherer, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant-Travelers Ins. Co., and as respondent.

James P. O'Flarity, Law Offices of James P. O'Flarity, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee-Daisey Q. Bryson, and as petitioner.

DOWNEY, Judge.

We have for review an interlocutory appeal (Case No. 76--788) from an order denying a motion to vacate a default consolidated with a petition for writ of certiorari (Case No. 76--1362) to review an order denying a motion to strike certain requests for discovery.

On January 7, 1976, Bryson filed suit against Traverls Insurance Company and Salvatore DeLuca for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident. The parties stipulated to a ten day extension for the filing of a responsive pleading so that Travelers could further investigate the claim. On February 20, 1976, counsel for Travelers filed a motion for a 45 day extension of time to respond to Bryson's complaint. On February 25, 1976, Bryson filed a motion for default and noticed same for hearing on March 5, 1976. On March 5, 1976, Travelers filed an answer but did not attend the hearing on Bryson's motion for default because the date had not been properly noted on the calendar of Travelers' counsel. The court entered a default on March 5th. On March 8th Travelers filed a motion to vacate the default which was denied on March 29th. The interlocutory appeal involves the order denying the motion to vacate.

Had counsel for Travelers properly calendared the hearing date on Bryson's motion to enter a default, he would have been in a position to advise the court at the hearing that Travelers' answer had been filed or was being filed, since the answer was filed on the same day the hearing was held. So we are really concerned with whether counsel's failure to appear at the hearing was a mistake, excusable neglect or inadvertence.

Under the circumstances of this case, we feel the trial judge abused his discretion in not vacating the default. The answer was filed on the date the default hearing was held. Counsel's absence from the hearing was a mistake, or inadvertent or excusable neglect. English v. Hecht, 189 So.2d 366 (Fla.3d DCA 1966).

The purpose of Rule 1.500, Fla.R.Civ.P., is to speed the cause along and prevent dilatory tactics. North...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • B. C. Builders Supply Co., Inc. v. Maldonado
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 3, 1981
    ...v. Mid-States Mortgage Corp., 356 So.2d 915 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Garcia Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Diaz, supra; Traveler's Insurance Co. v. Bryson, 341 So.2d 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Flaxman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 340 So.2d 515 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Associated Medical Institutions, ......
  • Miami-Dade County v. Coral Bay Section C
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 19, 2008
    ...v. Mid-States Mortgage Corp., 356 So.2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Garcia Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Diaz, supra; Travelers Insurance Co. v. Bryson, 341 So.2d 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Flaxman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 340 So.2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Associated Medical Institutions,......
  • Hall v. Byington
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 17, 1982
    ...date. A lawyer's failure to note a date properly on his calendar has been recognized as excusable neglect. Travelers Insurance Co. v. Bryson, 341 So.2d 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); English v. Hecht, 189 So.2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). However, there is neither a sworn motion in the record nor an......
  • Munsey v. General Telephone Co. of Florida
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 17, 1989
    ...or negligence--does constitute excusable neglect. See Hall v. Byington, 421 So.2d 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Travelers Insurance Co. v. Bryson, 341 So.2d 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); English v. Hecht, 189 So.2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 194 So.2d 619 (Fla.1966). Thus, in line with Florida......
  • 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