From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Burke Co. v. U.S. Telephone Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 2, 1990
571 So. 2d 33 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Opinion

No. 90-1167.

October 2, 1990.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Philip Cook, J.

Mandel Weisman and William S. Weisman, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellant.

Thornton Mastrucci and Sergio V. Medina, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, FERGUSON and COPE, JJ.


We conclude, contrary to the position of appellant The Burke Company, that a trial court has discretion in the application of Rule 1.060(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Here, defendant Burke successfully moved for a transfer of venue under Rule 1.060. Under Rule 1.060(c), plaintiff United States Telephone Company was obliged to pay the clerk's service charge within thirty days but inadvertently failed to do so. The charge was promptly paid as soon as U.S. Telephone learned it was overdue. Burke contends that the trial court was nonetheless required to dismiss without prejudice under Rule 1.060(c), given that the payment was late. We disagree. The court had discretion in the matter. There is not the slightest suggestion of prejudice to Burke, and the position taken by the trial court is consistent with the admonition that the "rules shall be construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action." Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.010.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Burke Co. v. U.S. Telephone Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 2, 1990
571 So. 2d 33 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)
Case details for

Burke Co. v. U.S. Telephone Co.

Case Details

Full title:THE BURKE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. UNITED STATES TELEPHONE…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Oct 2, 1990

Citations

571 So. 2d 33 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Citing Cases

Revis v. State

Rule 45, Ala.R.App.P. See Buchannon v. State, 554 So. 2d 477, 482 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989), overruled as to…

Alvarez v. Merriam-Callahan Ins

Furthermore, dismissal under the circumstances presented in this case constituted an abuse of discretion.…