Mickens v. Damron
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
RONNIE MICKENS and GLORIA J.
MICKENS,
)
)
)
Appellants/Cross-Appellees, )
)
v.
)
)
ALLEN DAMRON; DEBRA DAMRON;
)
ALLEN DAMRON CONSTRUCTION CO.; )
ELAINE P. CANADY; EDITH F. REWIS;
)
STEWART TITLE OF POLK COUNTY,
)
INC.; and STEWART TITLE GUARANTY )
CO.,
)
)
Appellees/Cross-Appellants. )
)
Case No. 2D08-658
Opinion filed January 23, 2009.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk
County; Roger Allan Alcott, Judge.
Ronnie Mickens and Gloria J. Mickens,
pro se.
Robert E. Biasotti of Carlton Fields, P.A.,
St. Petersburg, for Appellees/CrossAppellants.
ALTENBERND, Judge.
Ronnie and Gloria J. Mickens appeal an order dismissing their lawsuit for
failure to prosecute. Because dismissal was not appropriate under Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.420(e), we reverse.
This case arises out of a contract between Mr. and Mrs. Mickens and
Allen Damron Construction Company to build a home on property owned by Mr. and
Mrs. Mickens. At one point, a circuit court judge concluded that Allen Damron
Construction Company committed fraud to procure a quitclaim deed of the property from
Mr. and Mrs. Mickens and to encumber the property. The ensuing dispute led to three
separate circuit court case numbers and included a variety of parties. The cases were
consolidated, and then perhaps "unconsolidated," although the court order in this latter
regard is confusing and internally contradictory. Two of these cases appear to have
been resolved by the entry of judgments against Mr. and Mrs. Mickens, but the circuit
court case number underlying this appeal remained open, even though it appears to
involve the same underlying claims and transactions. In 2004, a panel of this court
explained that this lawsuit had "a long and tortured history." Mickens v. Allen Damron
Const. Co., 890 So. 2d 1139, 1140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Four years later, the tale
continues.
On July 5, 2007, the trial attorney for Stewart Title Guaranty Company
filed a "notice of dismissal for failure to prosecute." The notice recited that it was filed
"pursuant to Florida Rules [sic] of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)" and claims that the
"defendants" "give notice for an Order Dismissing this action in its entirety" because the
last record activity occurred on August 29, 2006. The notice claimed that more than a
year had passed without record activity.
This notice is odd for a variety of reasons. First, Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.420(a) addresses voluntary dismissal by a party; it has nothing to do with
an involuntary dismissal. Second, the period of time between July 5, 2007, and
-2-
August 29, 2006, is a little more than ten months and is not a year. The record
suggests, however, that this was a typographical error because the last record activity
occurred on the latter date in 2005. Third, assuming the notice was intended to be filed
under rule 1.420(e), a period of ten months was in fact the relevant period, not a year.
Effective January 1, 2006, over a year before Stewart Title filed the notice, rule 1.420
was amended. See In re Amendments to the Fla. Rules of Civil Procedure (Two Year
Cycle), 917 So. 2d 176, 176-77 (Fla. 2005). The prior rule measured failure to
prosecute by a one-year period, but the amended rule permits service of a notice of
failure to prosecute after ten months without record activity.
Rule 1.420(e) now provides that if no activity occurs in the sixty-day period
after the notice, then "the action shall be dismissed by the court on its own motion or on
the motion of any interested person, whether a party to the action or not." Mr. and Mrs.
Mickens filed a motion to amend and a proposed amended complaint within a few days
of receiving the notice. Apparently, because Mr. and Mrs. Mickens filed a motion to
amend as record activity, neither Stewart Title nor any other defendant filed a motion to
dismiss. Nevertheless, when the trial court conducted a hearing on October 1, 2007, on
Mr. and Mrs. Mickens' motion to amend, the court also stated that it was considering a
"motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute filed by the defense." No such motion exists
in the record, unless the court was erroneously referring to the notice discussed above.
At the hearing, it appears that the trial court did not understand that rule
1.420(e) had been amended in January 2006. Thus, the court was interested solely in
whether there had been record activity in the past year. Although there were four
attorneys in attendance at this hearing representing the various defendants, it is
-3-
disturbing to this court that no attorney spoke up to explain that there was no motion to
dismiss pending and that dismissal was improper under the controlling law.1 Simply
stated, the trial court erred in granting a motion to dismiss under rule 1.420(e) once Mr.
and Mrs. Mickens filed their motion to amend the complaint within sixty days of
receiving Stewart Title's notice. We therefore reverse the order dismissing this case.
We affirm the cross-appeal without further comment.
Reversed and remanded.
KELLY and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
1
Counsel of record in this appeal was not counsel in the trial court and has been
completely candid with this court about the content of the record on appeal.
-4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
