HomeMy WebLinkAbout0984 . ~
, r-
. .
Friar ~ppe~red on the complaint, it was signed only by Frier,
~nci ~icDonald disclaimed knowledge that his name was on the com- .
plaint. McDona~d represented Russell on the lat~er's workmen's
compensation claim and apparently referred the negligence suit
to Frier. McDonal~3 contended that Russell discharged him on
Septe:nber 7, 1977 from further representation. The appellant's
answer to the complaint was served on McDonald and Frier on July
5, 1977.
No further acGion toward prosecuting the case ensued,
and on August 11, 1978, the clerk of the trial court notified
apaellant's counsel and Frier by letter that the cause woul~l be
dismissed an September 12th unless good cause was shown prior to
that date. The notice did not contain a hearing date, nor did
it make reference to Rule 1.420(e). It is undisputed that no
record activity had occurred between July 5, 1977 and August 11,
1978. During this period, Frier was experiencing difficulties
coping with his duties as a lawyer and he failed to prosecute
Russell's claim. These proble;ns were not ~nade.known to Russell
who was assured reneatedly by Frier and his wife-secretary that '
his clai:n was being oro~ecuted diligently.
,
~ Wnen the clerk's letter. of August llth was discovered by
~ E'rier's wife, she notified McDonald of ~he circumstances, He
; immediately filed a motion to set the cause for jury trial and
~ the. court, on SeDtember 21, 1978, set the cause for trial: ~
e
~ Nonetheless, on September 26,~1978, the appellant filed a motion
~
~ to dismi$s the action for failure to prosecute, alleging no rec-
~ ord activity for morP than one year after the filing of appel-
€
~ lant's answer. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss on
~ the ground that Frier's mental problems~ which ~aere unknown to
Russell, constituted good cause for failing to prosecute. The
; case subsequently went to trial with new counsel representing
the Russells.
In.view of our holding, it is not necessary ta determine
n
~ whether Frier's mental problems canstituted good cause for al-
~ lowing the action to remain pending. We believe that the infor-
~ .
~ mal clerk's notice sent to the parties on August I1, 1978 was a
. -2- a~nK Pac~ ~1
s
~
_ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _