HELENE J. POSTMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
PELZNER, SCHWEDOCK, FINKELSTEIN & KLAUSNER, P.A., F/K/A PELZNER, SCHWEDOCK & FINKELSTEIN, P.A., A FLORIDA PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed a $15,000 judgment against a defendant-client in an attorney's fees dispute because she received inadequate notice of trial and the trial judge would have granted her continuance motion had she been present at the calendar call.
A trial court errs in proceeding to judgment without adequate notice to a party of the calendar call that sets the trial date, particularly where the party had filed a continuance motion and the judge indicated he would have granted it.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error by proceeding to trial without providing a party adequate notice of the calendar call that sets the trial date, particularly where…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA law firm sued a former client for attorney's fees. The client had notified the court and plaintiff's counsel of her unavailability in August and fil…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice Of Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an action between the appellee lawfirm and a former client over attorney’s fees. The client was representing herself. The matter was originally set for jury trial in the spring of 1983. The case was continued at the request of the plaintiff. The parties agreed that the matter would be reset in the fall of 1983. The court on its own set the cause for trial during the first 2 weeks of August, 1983. Everybody concedes that the defendant did not receive notice of the calendar call. Although she had notified plaintiff’s counsel and the judge’s office that she would be unavailable in August and had filed a motion for continuance, setting forth such unavailability, on August 1st she was notified by the judge’s office that the case would be tried on August 2nd. She did not appear and suffered an adverse jury verdict of $15,-000.00. We reverse.
All parties concede that the defendant had no notice of the calendar call which fixed the date of the trial and the trial judge having indicated that if she had been present at the calendar call he would have granted her motion for continuance, we find it error to have gone forward with the trial and to have denied her motion for new trial. Ford v. Ford, 150 Fla. 717, 8 So. 2d 495 (1942); Courtney v. Central Trust Co., 112 Fla. 298, 150 So. 276 (1933); In Re Estate of Rutherfurd, 304 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).
Therefore we reverse the final judgment under review and return the cause to the trial court for the purposes of a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Serge Taieb v. Pierre-Levy, 505 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…PER CURIAM. Due process requires that a party be given notice, by order of the court, setting a cause for trial where the ease is reset to another trial period after a continuance. See Postman v. Pelzner, 450 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Reversed and remanded.…
-
Pedreira v. Denis Michael Reynolds & State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 619 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Clement v. Marcus, Stowell & Beye, Inc., 516 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Postman v. Pelzner, Schwedock, Finkelstein & Klausner, P.A., 450 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).…
Authorities Cited
- Courtney v. Cent. Tr. Co., 112 Fla. 298 (Fla. 1933)
- Ford v. Ford, 150 Fla. 717 (Fla. 1942)
- In re Est. of John M. L. Rutherfurd, 304 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)