Rapid Credit Corp. v. Sunset Park Centre, Ltd.
Docket: 90-626
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; July 17, 1990; Florida; State Appellate Court
An interlocutory appeal was filed by appellants Rapid Credit Corp. and its general partners, Luis De Villiers and Remberto Cabrera, against appellees Sunset Park Centre, Ltd. and its representatives regarding the denial of motions to set aside clerk's orders of default. The District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed and remanded the case. The dispute arose from a failed real estate transaction where Rapid sought specific performance against Sunset. During this litigation, Sunset lost its property due to foreclosure and subsequently sued Rapid for money damages, alleging Rapid's delay tactics were responsible for their loss. The clerk entered defaults against Rapid without notice due to their failure to respond. However, prior to the defaults, Rapid had mistakenly filed a motion to transfer and consolidate the case, which was denied by the administrative judge. Despite this, Rapid continued to engage in the litigation by filing motions, unaware of the defaults. Sunset's attorney did not inform the court or Rapid of these defaults or of Rapid's attempts to consolidate. A new attorney for Rapid later discovered the defaults, leading to the appeal. The court addressed the attorney's duty to disclose procedural information, emphasizing that under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(b), the entry of default requires notice if any paper has been filed. Rapid's motion to consolidate indicated an intent to defend, thus obligating Sunset's attorney to notify Rapid before seeking a default. The court reiterated that defaults should be entered by the court, not the clerk, in such circumstances. The ruling underscored the necessity for attorneys to communicate regarding procedural statuses to prevent defaults. Defaults against Rapid were reversed and remanded due to improper entry, as Rapid had filed a motion and Sunset was aware of their intention to defend. The court found no need to consider Rapid's other arguments. Chief Judge Schwartz expressed serious concerns about the conduct of appellees' attorneys, Barry N. Greenberg and Gary Scott Salzman, suggesting their actions merit a Florida Bar inquiry for potential professional misconduct. The attorneys allegedly misrepresented to the clerk that defendants had not appeared in the case and engaged in deceptive practices regarding their court appearances. Schwartz indicated that these actions might violate Florida Bar Rules concerning candor and fairness. He felt compelled to inform the Bar of these events. The excerpt also notes that other parties sued by Sunset are unrelated to this appeal. Concerns were raised about the declining standards in legal practice, with commentary on the imbalance between a lawyer's duty to their client and their obligation to justice. The court deemed the attorneys' defense of the default frivolous and granted a motion for attorney's fees under Florida Statutes.