Summary
reversing order dismissing case for failure to comply with a court order to retain new counsel "[b]ecause the order does not, as required, state that the claimed noncompliance was willful or deliberate"
Summary of this case from Cherry Roofing Enters. v. BaderOpinion
No. 3D00-473.
December 20, 2000.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, David Tobin, Judge.
Robert Villasante; Abadin Jaramillo and Julio C. Jaramillo, for appellants.
O'Connor Meyers and David R. Cassetty, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and SORONDO and RAMIREZ, JJ.
The plaintiff's appeal from an order dismissing their malpractice case because of a supposed violation of a court order to secure replacement counsel or give notice of their desire not to do so. See Kreiser Constr., Inc. v. Trafford, 699 So.2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Because the order does not, as required, state that the claimed noncompliance was willful or deliberate, see Walden v. Adekola, 773 So.2d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Visoly v. Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan Berlin, P.A., 707 So.2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) and, more important, because the circumstances revealed by the record show, as a matter of law, that no such finding could be properly rendered or sustained, see Commonwealth Fed. Savings Loan Ass'n v. Tubero, 569 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 1990), the order on appeal is reversed and the cause is remanded for trial.