BLDG. INSPECTION SER. v. Olemberg

Florida District Courts of Appeal
BLDG. INSPECTION SER. v. Olemberg, 476 So. 2d 774 (1985)
10 Fla. L. Weekly 2349
Barkdull, Hubbart and Nesbitt

BLDG. INSPECTION SER. v. Olemberg

Opinion

476 So.2d 774 (1985)

BUILDING INSPECTION SERVICES, INC. OF DADE, a Florida Corporation, Appellant,
v.
Isaac OLEMBERG and Nieves Olemberg, Appellees.

Nos. 85-605, 85-606.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

October 15, 1985.

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.

Reference

Cited By
3 cases
Status
Published