Vera v. Adeland, 3D02-3349.
Decision Date | 09 September 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 3D02-3349.,3D02-3349. |
Citation | 881 So.2d 707 |
Parties | Camilo VERA, Appellant, v. Chamberland ADELAND, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jason S. Remer and J.H. Zidell, for appellant.
Adams & Adams, P.A., and Derek B. Barba, Miami, for appellee.
Before COPE, SHEVIN and RAMIREZ, JJ.
Plaintiff-appellant Camilo Vera appeals the dismissal of his complaint against defendant-appellee Chamberland Adeland for failure to substitute an appropriate party upon the death of the defendant. We reverse.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence in an automobile accident case. The defendant, a Canadian citizen, was represented by counsel provided through his automobile insurance policy.
The defendant's counsel filed a suggestion of death, stating that the defendant had passed away. Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.260(a)(1), this filing triggered a ninety-day period for substitution of a new party defendant.
On the ninety-sixth day, successor defense counsel served a motion to dismiss the action because the plaintiff had not moved to substitute a proper party defendant in place of the decedent. The plaintiff then requested an extension of time and soon thereafter filed a motion for substitution of parties. The court dismissed the action because the plaintiff had not moved to substitute parties, or filed a motion for extension of time, within ninety days. This appeal follows.
II.
The plaintiff first argues that the suggestion of death filed by defense counsel was legally insufficient because it contained no information about the date and location of the defendant's death, and did not state whether an estate had been opened. The plaintiff maintains that if a suggestion of death does not reveal such information, it should be deemed legally insufficient to start the ninety-day time period for substitution of parties. We reject this argument.
Rule 1.260 states, in part:
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.260(a)(1) (emphasis added).
The purpose of the rule is to provide an orderly procedure and timetable for substitution where a party has died during the course of the litigation. The rule does not spell out any specific requirements for the content of the suggestion of death, and we decline to add requirements that are not stated in the rule.
In this case, the suggestion of death stated in its entirety, "Comes now, the undersigned counsel for the Defendant, Adeland Chamberland, [and] state[s] that he has been notified that the Defendant, Adeland Chamberland, died approximately one year ago." The rule does not require anymore specificity than this, although the better practice is to include the details relevant for substitution purposes. See Bruce J. Berman, Florida Civil Procedure ¶ 260.4, at 281 (2004 ed.) () (footnote omitted).
If we were to accept the plaintiff's argument, there would never be any certainty about how to calculate the time period after the suggestion of death is filed. Under the plaintiff's analysis, the ninety-day deadline can always be avoided if the suggestion of death omits any detail regarding the decedent's demise and the existence of an estate. The plaintiff's theory is unworkable. The rules regarding calculation of time limits need to operate in a clear and predictable way.
Here, the defense filed a document entitled suggestion of death, which advised the parties that the decedent...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Speedway Superamerica, LLC v. Dupont
...Inc., 626 So.2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). 3. See North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, 143 So.2d 849 (Fla.1962); Vera v. Adeland, 881 So.2d 707, 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). 4. See Natson v. Eckerd Corp., Inc., 885 So.2d 945, 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Cf. Razner v. Wellington Regional Medical Cent......
-
In re Aredia® & Zometa® Prods. Liab. Litig.
...ad litem, will need to be substituted.'" Schaeffler v. Deych, 38 So.3d 796, 800 (Fla.App. 4 Dist., 2010)(quoting Vera v. Adeland, 881 So.2d 707, 7120 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004))(emphasis added).(DE 6598, p. 4 n. 1; Related Case 53) Mr. Osborn's argument that Florida law does not require the late Ms......
-
Wallace v. Keldie
...such as a guardian ad litem, will need to be substituted." 38 So.3d 796, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting Vera v. Adeland , 881 So.2d 707, 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) ). The motion represented that although Appellee's counsel did not object to the appointment of Mr. Mann, she believed that Appel......
-
Padgett v. Snyder, CASE NO. 2:17-CV-14099-ROSENBERG/WHITE
...is the decedent's personal representative. Schaeffler v. Deych, 38 So. 3d 796, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citing Vera v. Adeland, 881 So. 2d 707, 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)); see also Metcalf v. Lee, 952 So. 2d 624, 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). "If no estate has been opened, then another appropriate ......
-
Florida family law rules of procedure
...of the confusion of inconsistency over the question of whether the estate had been open for the deceased defendant. Vera v. Adeland , 881 So.2d 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Gaines v. Sayne The entry of a written final judgment of dissolution of marriage is not voided by a subsequent death of a p......