BLDG. INSPECTION SER. v. Olemberg
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Lopez v. Suarez (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
- McClenon v. Zartemi (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
- Ziff v. Stuber (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
BUILDING INSPECTION SERVICES, INC. OF DADE, a Florida Corporation, Appellant,
v.
Isaac OLEMBERG and Nieves Olemberg, Appellees.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Siegfried, Kipnis & Rivera and Lisa Millhauser, Miami, for appellant.
Douglas D. Stratton and Pedro A. Cofino, Miami Beach, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and NESBITT, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
We hold that a letter filed in a cause by an officer of a defendant corporation, advising the court that the corporation is attempting to engage an attorney to represent it, constitutes a "paper" under Rule 1.500(a) Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, See Reicheinbach v. Southeast Bank, N.A., 462 So.2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Accord Dalminter, Inc., v. Jessie Edwards, Inc., 27 F.R.D. 491 (S.D.Tex. 1961); McClintock v. Serv-Us Bakers, 103 Ariz. 72, 436 P.2d 891 (1968); Best v. Jones, 644 P.2d 89 (Colo. App. 1982); Roland v. W & L Motor Lines, Inc., 32 N.C. App. 288, 231 S.E.2d 685 (1977); See also Hankin v. Blissett, 475 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), and, a default entered by a clerk, with such a "paper" in the file, was not authorized, therefore the trial court erred in refusing to set same aside. Reicheinbach v. Southeast Bank, N.A., supra; Chester, Blackburn & Roder, Inc. v. Marchese, 383 So.2d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Mo-Con Properties, Inc., v. American Mechanical, Inc., 289 So.2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).
Reversed and remanded.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.