Emerald Coast Utilities Authority v. Bear Marcus Pointe, LLC a Florida limited etc.
15-5714
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Aug 9, 2017Background
- After a March 18, 2014 attorneys’ fees order in eminent-domain litigation, the clerk emailed the order to counsel on March 20, 2014; appellant claimed it did not receive the order until after the appeal period expired and moved under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b) to vacate and reenter the order so it could file a timely appeal.
- Clerk IT logs showed the clerk’s server successfully handed off the emails to Odom & Barlow’s mail server on March 20 without bounce or error messages.
- IT consultants for Odom & Barlow testified the firm’s mail server was configured to drop suspected spam without notice, kept no logs or backups, and rejected recommended safeguards (third‑party filtering, online backups).
- Independent reviewers opined it was more likely than not the clerk’s emails reached Odom & Barlow’s server; after acceptance the recipient server (controlled by the firm) could have filtered/deleted the messages.
- The trial court found appellant failed to show excusable neglect and denied the 1.540(b) motion; the First DCA affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Appellee's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying relief under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b) to vacate/reenter the attorneys’ fees order so appellant could file a late appeal | Counsel never received the emailed order in time; not served in practice, so the missed appeal was excusable neglect | Clerk properly served the order; any failure was attributable to appellant’s counsel (defective mail-server configuration, no logs/backups, failure to monitor docket or agree to status motions) and thus not excusable | Affirmed: no excusable neglect; clerk’s server delivered the emails and the firm’s conscious system choices and lack of procedures were not excusable |
Key Cases Cited
- Handel v. Nevel, 147 So. 3d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (discusses 1.540(b) relief for excusable neglect)
- Pompi v. City of Jacksonville, 872 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (excusable neglect found where court/staff error contributed to counsel’s mistake)
- Hollifield v. Renew & Co., Inc., 18 So. 3d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (limits 1.540(b) relief when neglect occurs entirely within counsel’s office)
- Bequer v. Nat’l City Bank, 46 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (refusing relief where neglect resulted from a defective system rather than a system gone awry)
- Hornblower v. Cobb, 932 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (gross or conscious neglect is not excusable)
- Yeschick v. Mineta, 675 F.3d 622 (6th Cir. 2012) (counsel’s failure to monitor docket is not excusable neglect)
- Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403 (4th Cir. 2010) (computer problems do not excuse failure to monitor docket or use alternative means to learn of orders)