Osheroff v. Osheroff

Florida District Courts of Appeal
Osheroff v. Osheroff, 694 So. 2d 855 (1997)
1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6191; 1997 WL 295194
Barkdull, Cope, Green

Osheroff v. Osheroff

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.

Reference

Full Case Name
Marc A. OSHEROFF v. Leonard OSHEROFF
Cited By
3 cases
Status
Published