From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hamilton v. Millnul Associates

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jan 13, 1984
443 So. 2d 485 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Opinion

No. 83-1029.

January 13, 1984.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Calvin A. Pope, J.

Stephen J. Powell of Arky, Freed, Stearns, Watson Greer, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.

Elvin W. Phillips of Lawson, McWhirter Grandoff, Tampa, for appellees.


We affirm the lower court's order of dismissal without prejudice and hold that a voluntary dismissal followed by a dismissal for lack of prosecution is without prejudice to refiling the suit.

Recently this court found there was no authority for a dismissal with prejudice when the dismissal is based solely on the failure to prosecute. McDaniel v. Onkey, 422 So.2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). The parties agree that a dismissal under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e) for failure to prosecute does not constitute an adjudication on the merits.

The parties also agree that when a party has voluntarily dismissed an action under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(1), a second dismissal under that subsection operates as an adjudication on the merits and bars the claim. But the two-dismissal provision in rule 1.420(a)(1) is in derogation of the common law and should be strictly construed. Crump v. Gold House Restaurant, 96 So.2d 215, 219 (Fla. 1957).

Appellant contends that when a plaintiff takes a voluntary dismissal under rule 1.420(a)(1) and then suffers a dismissal for failure to prosecute under rule 1.420(e), the consequence should be dismissal with prejudice. We disagree. Those two types of dismissals do not result in a dismissal with prejudice under rule 1.420(a)(1) construed by any method, much less strictly construed as required by Crump. There is no proper basis to combine the language of rules 1.420(a)(1) and 1.420(e) by construing a dismissal for failure to prosecute as a second, voluntary dismissal which, in the final analysis, appears to be appellant's contention.

We should note that two voluntary dismissals do not necessarily entail dismissal with prejudice. One dismissal could be under rule 1.420(a)(1) and the second under rule 1.420(a)(2), which allows the court discretion to dismiss with or without prejudice.

AFFIRMED.

OTT, C.J., and HOBSON, J., concur.


Summaries of

Hamilton v. Millnul Associates

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jan 13, 1984
443 So. 2d 485 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
Case details for

Hamilton v. Millnul Associates

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL HAMILTON, APPELLANT, v. MILLNUL ASSOCIATES, A PARTNERSHIP UNDER THE…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jan 13, 1984

Citations

443 So. 2d 485 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Citing Cases

Southeast Mortg. Co. v. Sinclair

A dismissal for lack of prosecution does not result in a dismissal with prejudice and, hence, is not a bar to…

Pettijohn v. Dade County

Pettijohn raises only one point which merits discussion. She contends that since in a Florida court a…