Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; November 11, 1998; Florida; State Appellate Court
Richard Doss appeals a final judgment in favor of Steger, P.A. regarding a breach of contract claim. The appeal raises multiple issues, but only the trial court's ruling on Doss's 1.420(e) motion to dismiss is deemed meritorious. The court found that the trial court abused its discretion in denying this motion, which was based on a 1990 contract where Doss agreed to pay a $10,000 non-refundable attorney's fee to Steger for representation in his post-conviction relief claim, with payment sourced from a workers’ compensation claim assigned to the firm.
In 1991, Steger sued Doss for breach of contract, alleging he intercepted a $5,000 settlement and paid it to another attorney. The court issued a garnishment on the same day. Following Doss's counterclaim and Steger's motion for summary judgment, the court ruled in favor of Steger, awarding $10,000. Doss's appeal of this summary judgment resulted in a prior court reversing the decision. Afterward, Doss sought the return of funds previously directed to Steger, which the trial court denied. Doss later amended his counterclaim to assert inadequate representation by Steger in the workers' compensation case.
Steger moved to dismiss this counterclaim on statute of limitations grounds, which Doss opposed, claiming the motion was a "sham." After a lengthy delay, Doss filed a 1.420(e) motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, which did not receive a hearing until over a year later. The trial court denied this motion, and Doss's attempt to appeal was dismissed due to the order being non-final.
The case proceeded to trial, resulting in a jury verdict in favor of Steger, awarding $3,028 for breach of contract. Doss faced contempt charges during subsequent attorney fee proceedings. Ultimately, the trial court awarded Steger fees and costs, crediting Doss for prior payments. Doss challenges the denial of his 1.420(e) motion, the return of the funds, the jury verdict, and the contempt order, with the appeal affirming all but the 1.420(e) motion issue.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e) mandates the dismissal of actions with no record activity for over one year, unless good cause is shown. In this case, it was established that there had been no activity for more than a year. The trial court's evaluation of Steger's claim of 'good cause' was scrutinized. Steger argued that reliance on two court orders, which denied the return of garnished funds, justified its inaction. However, no contact with the opposing party was claimed during the inaction period, and the orders indicated further necessary proceedings. The appellate court found Steger's arguments insufficient to establish 'good cause' and determined that the trial court abused its discretion by not dismissing the case. Consequently, the final judgment was reversed, and the matter was remanded for dismissal due to lack of prosecution, allowing for potential refiling if statutes of limitation permit.
