OSHEROFF v. OSHEROFF (1997)

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Third District.

Marc A. OSHEROFF, Appellant, v. Leonard OSHEROFF, Appellee.

No. 96-3535.

Decided: June 04, 1997

Before COPE and GREEN, JJ., and BARKDULL, Senior Judge.

Tew & Beasley and Steven M. Katzman and Charles S. Marion, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Harry A. Payton and Greg Tung Nguyen, for appellee.

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., P.A., 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.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network