KATHLEEN MADILL v. RIVERCREST COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.
273 So. 3d 1157
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- Madill prevailed in litigation against Rivercrest Community Association and was entitled to recover attorney's fees under the governing documents and § 720.305(1).
- Final judgment was entered (signed Mar. 13, 2018; clerk-stamped Mar. 14, 2018); the 30-day deadline to serve a motion for fees was April 13, 2018.
- Madill served her motion for fees on May 2, 2018 (19 days late) and simultaneously moved for an enlargement of time under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090(b)(2), supported by affidavits.
- Madill’s firm normally relied on the court’s e-filing portal (JAWS) and the clerk’s e-service for receiving court orders; the firm did not receive JAWS or clerk notifications of the final judgment.
- A partner listed as counsel of record received an email from the judge’s judicial assistant with the judgment attached but (according to his affidavit) did not recognize it as a court-serving email, failed to open/forward it, and the firm only discovered the judgment on April 30 when the client found it online.
- The trial court denied the enlargement motion, concluding the attorney’s failure to open the JA’s email was inexcusable and therefore Madill failed to show excusable neglect; the district court reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Madill showed excusable neglect to obtain an enlargement of time to file a motion for fees under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090(b)(2) | Firm had a routine tracking system relying on JAWS/clerk e-service; it received no notice via those systems and promptly acted when it learned of the judgment; the late filing resulted from an inadvertent staff/attorney oversight (operational breakdown) | The attorney was counsel of record and received an email from the court; glossing over and failing to open a court email is inexcusable and does not excuse the untimely filing | Reversed: court abused discretion; the neglect was excusable given the firm's systems, prompt corrective action, lack of prejudice, and human clerical error |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. Lake County, 840 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (excusable neglect standard follows Pioneer and allows late filings for inadvertence or operational breakdowns)
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (factors for excusable neglect include prejudice, reason for delay, duration, and good faith)
- Boudot v. Boudot, 925 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (courts should consider all relevant circumstances in excusable neglect analysis)
- Lyn v. Lyn, 884 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (attorney misunderstanding of law is not excusable neglect)
- Hovercraft of S. Fla., LLC v. Reynolds, 211 So. 3d 1073 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (excusable neglect may be found where counsel's office procedures or systems break down)
- Elliott v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 31 So. 3d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (clerical or secretarial error can constitute excusable neglect)