De Vico v. Berkell, 3D07-2167.

Decision Date12 March 2008
Docket NumberNo. 3D07-2167.,3D07-2167.
Citation976 So.2d 646
PartiesPaul DE VICO, Appellant, v. Gerald S. BERKELL, et al., Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Ron Bradley Kurtz, North Miami, for appellant.

Smoler Lerman Bente & Whitebook, Miami and Patrick Patrissi, for appellees.

Before WELLS, ROTHENBERG, and LAGOA, JJ.

ROTHENBERG, Judge.

Frank Gangemi ("Gangemi") is a disbarred attorney who was incarcerated for stealing in excess of $6 million from his clients. Paul De Vico, one of Gangemi's clients, filed a lawsuit against Gangemi's lawfirm, Berkell & Berkell-Rafery, P.A., and Gerald S. Berkell (collectively "the defendants") on August 8, 2003. On March 21, 2007, after the defendants learned that Mr. De Vico had died, they filed a Suggestion of Death, thereby triggering Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.260(a)(i), which provides that upon a suggestion of death, the proper party must be substituted within ninety days. At the expiration of the ninety-day period, because no substitution was made and no extension was requested, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.260(a), and noticed the motion for a hearing on July 25, 2007.

On July 24, 2007, Mr. De Vico's daughter, Lorraine De Vico, the personal representative of her father's estate, filed, through counsel, a Motion to Substitute Party. On July 25, Ms. De Vico filed a motion for enlargement of time and an affidavit sworn to by her counsel. After considering the evidence presented and the arguments of counsel, the trial court dismissed the complaint, finding no excusable neglect.

Because rule 1.090(b) provides for an enlargement of time to procure substitution of the proper party, and rule 1.090(b)(2) allows an extension of time after expiration of the prescribed period upon a showing of excusable neglect, we must determine whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding that excusable neglect was not shown. Boudot v. Boudot, 925 So.2d 409, 415 n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (citing Smith v. Smith, 902 So.2d 859, 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)).

We begin our analysis with recognition of this state's long-standing tradition in favor of the disposition of an action on its merits. See N. Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So.2d 849, 852-53 (Fla.1962); Vera v. Adeland, 881 So.2d 707, 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Edwards v. Najjar, 748 So.2d 1101, 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Additionally, all doubts are to be resolved in favor of allowing trial on the merits. See Edwards, 748 So.2d at 1103; Apolaro v. Falcon, 566 So.2d 815, 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Tucker v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 552 So.2d 1178, 1179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

Ms. De Vico's counsel, Ron Bradley Kurtz ("Kurtz"), filed an affidavit explaining that Mr. De Vico handled his own affairs and that upon his death, his daughter, Lorraine, was left with the task of determining her father's assets and liabilities and attending to his affairs. Although she had been appointed as the personal representative of her father's estate at the suggestion of her probate and tax attorney for tax reasons, being a lay person and unfamiliar with the process, she did not realize that a probate estate had been opened, and she did not inform Kurtz of the existence of the probate action. Kurtz averred that as soon as he learned that a probate estate had been initiated and that Ms. De Vico had been named as the personal representative of her father's estate, he immediately filed the motion to substitute her as a party.

In Somero v. Hendry General Hospital, 467 So.2d 1103, 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), the Fourth District held that:

[W]here inaction results from clerical or secretarial error, reasonable misunderstanding, a system gone awry or any other of the foibles to which human nature is heir, then upon timely application accompanied by a reasonable and credible explanation the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Sammons v. Greenfield, Case No. 2D17-755
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 19 Octubre 2018
    ...68 So. 3d at 984. We review a trial court's determination regarding excusable neglect for an abuse of discretion. De Vico v. Berkell, 976 So. 2d 646, 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). On appeal, the Sammons argue for the first time that the trial court erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary heari......
  • Sammons v. Adam Greenfield, D.O.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 8 Mayo 2019
    ...68 So. 3d at 984. We review a trial court's determination regarding excusable neglect for an abuse of discretion. De Vico v. Berkell, 976 So. 2d 646, 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).On appeal, the Sammons argue for the first time that the trial court erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearin......
  • R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Lacey
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 3 Julio 2019
    ...for his delay in filing his motion for substitution. The petitioners may have overlooked this Court's decision in De Vico v. Berkell, 976 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), a case in which a Miami-Dade circuit court case was dismissed for the deceased plaintiff's failure to file a substitution ......
  • State v. Berry, 3D07-904.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 12 Marzo 2008

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