calendaring error in Florida

2023Co., 346 So. 3d 62 , 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (“A calendaring error by an attorney’s staff is one of the common reasons that relief is granted under rule 1.540(b)(1).”); Suntrust Mortg. v. Torrenga, 153 So. 3d 952, 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (finding 4 excusable neglect where, due to a clerical or administrative error, an attorney failed to calendar the trial date into her internal case management system and thus failed to appear at trial); Al Hendrickson Toyota, Inc. v. Yampolsky, 695 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (noting that “the established case law deems that calendaring errors are regarded a

2016SunTrust Mortg. v. Torrenga, 153 So.3d 952, 953-54 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

2022Co., 88 So. 3d 415, 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (recognizing that “a failure to appear due to a calendaring or clerical error is the type of ‘excusable neglect’ or ‘mistake’ that warrants relief under rule 1.540(b) is well-supported in Florida law” and reversing accordingly the order denying a rule 1.540(b) motion for relief from a final summary judgment, which was entered due to attorney’s inadvertent failure to attend the summary judgment hearing because of a paralegal’s calendaring omission); Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Brogden, 185 So. 3d 627 , 629–30 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (finding excusable ne

2022See Acosta, 88 So. 3d at 417 (holding that because “the alleged calendaring error was supported by the verified motion, signed and sworn to, by both counsel and the paralegal that made the error[,] . . . [t]he appellant thus made a colorable claim which satisfied the excusable neglect prong for relief under rule 1.540(b)”).

2026“In Florida, pro se litigants are bound by the same rules that apply to counsel.” Stueber v. Gallagher, 812 So. 2d 454, 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Hamza v. McLemore, 421 So. 3d 742 , 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025) (“[A]ll parties before a court—whether represented by counsel or representing themselves pro se—must fulfill the obligations imposed by the rules of procedure, just as they are afforded the protections provided by the rules.”).

2026“In Florida, pro se litigants are bound by the same rules that apply to counsel.” Stueber v. Gallagher, 812 So. 2d 454, 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Hamza v. McLemore, 421 So. 3d 742 , 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025) (“[A]ll parties before a court—whether represented by counsel or representing themselves pro se—must fulfill the obligations imposed by the rules of procedure, just as they are afforded the protections provided by the rules.”).

2025Universal argues that the Housens waited too long to move to vacate the arbitration award and did not take “swift action . . . upon first receiving knowledge of any default.” Lazcar Int’l, Inc. v. Caraballo, 957 So. 2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quoting Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. Steven Lake Masonry, Inc., 356 So. 2d 1329, 1330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)).

2025See Barton Protective Servs., LLC v. Redmon, 387 So. 3d 353 , 355-56 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“It is well-established Florida law that excusable neglect is found where an inadvertent calendaring error results in an attorney’s failure to act.”); Polymer, 374 So. 3d at 39 (finding that “a calendaring error stemming from a series of oversights and miscommunications between Polymer’s counsel and his legal assistants” constituted excusable neglect).

2025See Barton Protective Servs., LLC v. Redmon, 387 So. 3d 353 , 355-56 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“It is well-established Florida law that excusable neglect is found where an inadvertent calendaring error results in an attorney’s failure to act.”); Polymer, 374 So. 3d at 39 (finding that “a calendaring error stemming from a series of oversights and miscommunications between Polymer’s counsel and his legal assistants” constituted excusable neglect).

2025Universal argues that the Housens waited too long to move to vacate the arbitration award and did not take “swift action . . . upon first receiving knowledge of any default.” Lazcar Int’l, Inc. v. Caraballo, 957 So. 2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quoting Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. Steven Lake Masonry, Inc., 356 So. 2d 1329, 1330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)).

2023Co., 346 So. 3d 62 , 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (“A calendaring error by an attorney’s staff is one of the common reasons that relief is granted under rule 1.540(b)(1).”); Suntrust Mortg. v. Torrenga, 153 So. 3d 952, 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (finding 4 excusable neglect where, due to a clerical or administrative error, an attorney failed to calendar the trial date into her internal case management system and thus failed to appear at trial); Al Hendrickson Toyota, Inc. v. Yampolsky, 695 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (noting that “the established case law deems that calendaring errors are regarded a

2017Cf. Al Hendrickson Toyota, Inc. v. Yampolsky, 695 So.2d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (finding trial court erred in denying motion for relief from technical admissions based on calendaring error because "the established case law deems that calendaring errors are regarded as excusable neglect”); see also Melody Tours, Inc., 413 So.2d at 451 (finding mere inadvertence justified allowing relief from technical admissions under liberal application of rule 1.370).

2008In Alberts v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., 673 So.2d 158, 159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), “a mistake in communication” between the lender’s counsel and the sale agent resulted in the agent making too low a bid, which the buyer at the sale trumped by bidding $5 more.

2002See e.g., Sanchez v. Horrell, 660 So.2d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

1994See Marco Surfside, Inc. v. Velez, 438 So.2d 911, 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Supro Corp. v. Bridwell, 361 So.2d 734, 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Travelers Ins.

1994See Marco Surfside, Inc. v. Velez, 438 So.2d 911, 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Supro Corp. v. Bridwell, 361 So.2d 734, 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Travelers Ins.