America's Yate De Costa Rica v. Armco Manufacturing, Inc.
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 9618
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- America's Yate de Costa Rica sued Armco for conversion, fraud in the inducement, and Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claims; Armco answered and asserted a counterclaim for unjust enrichment.
- Armco’s counsel moved to withdraw on January 14, 2008; service listed the Annapolis address for corporate reps, but not the Miami PO box.
- An order granting withdrawal directed that future pleadings go to the Annapolis address; the order did not mention the Miami PO box.
- After withdrawal, interrogatories were sent to Armco; Armco failed to respond, leading to ex parte motions, contempt, and an order striking Armco’s pleadings on May 2, 2008; all notices were mailed to Annapolis.
- Armco later moved for relief from the order under Rule 1.540(b), arguing lack of notice; evidentiary hearing showed reps in Costa Rica, Annapolis address used by prior counsel, and no forwarding of Annapolis mail.
- The circuit court denied relief, finding deliberate act by Armco in failing to provide a chosen address; on appeal, the court ruled Armco proved excusable neglect and reversed, remanding to reinstate pleadings and retry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excusable neglect was shown | Armco failed to notify court of mailing address change. | Armco lacked notice due to notices sent to Annapolis address; Miami box not properly used. | Yes; excusable neglect proven due to lack of notice |
| Whether striking pleadings was appropriate given lack of notice | Striking was proper to sanction noncompliance after notice. | Lack of notice meant sanctions were too severe; alternative relief warranted. | No; reversal required; sanctions too harsh where notice lacked |
| Whether the case should be reinstated and remanded for trial | Final judgment should stand; matter for trial not necessitated by remedy revision. | Pleadings should be reinstated; trial reset to cure prejudice. | Remand and reinstatement ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Vitetta, 8 So.3d 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for denial of relief from judgment)
- DiSarrio v. Mills, 711 So.2d 1355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (excusable neglect requires a legal excuse and meritorious defense)
- Taylor v. Bowles, 570 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (mailing to old address without notice can support relief from judgment)
- Cook v. Custom Marine Distrib., Inc., 29 So.3d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (striking pleadings is a severe sanction; less drastic remedies should be used if possible)