Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1997

Osheroff v. Osheroff

Osheroff v. Osheroff
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided June 4, 1997 · Barkdull, Cope, Green
694 So. 2d 855; 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6191; 1997 WL 295194 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)
Osheroff v. Osheroff

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

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 of the Court

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order entering default and default judgment against the defendant-appellant as a sanction because counsel filed a motion to dismiss instead of an answer pursuant to an agreed order requiring the filing of a “responsive pleading.” See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.100(a) (defining “pleadings”). “This was much too harsh a sanction for the minor dereliction involved and thus constituted a plain abuse of discretion.” Techno Indus. Corp. v. Cooper Indus., Inc., 410 So.2d 584, 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (citations omitted); see also Joseph v. Marese, 534 So.2d 920, 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Thaw, Gopman & Assocs., P.A v. Jack J. Greenberg, M.D. & Assocs., PA, 595 So.2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Accordingly the final judgment and default are reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.