February 18, 2026*
Schwartz Sladkus Reich Greenberg Atlas LLP recently secured a significant victory in Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal, obtaining reversal of an order dismissing homeowners’ breach of contract action against their insurer as a sanction for their trial counsel’s failure to appear at trial.
The circuit court had entered an order setting a calendar call on a date one week prior to a four-week trial period. The order advised that the sequence of the various trials during the trial period would be determined after the calendar call, and it warned that failure to appear may result in dismissal of the action.
The parties’ attorneys appeared at the calendar call and announced that they were ready for trial. The circuit court set the case for trial to begin at some point during a specified week, along with other cases. On the afternoon of the first day of that week, the homeowners’ attorney’s office received a telephone call from the circuit court’s judicial assistant, advising that the circuit court had started the trial that afternoon. The judicial assistant also said that she had attempted to contact the homeowners’ counsel earlier that morning, but she had not been able to reach them.
The following morning, the circuit court entered a final order dismissing the homeowners’ action as a sanction for their counsel’s failure to appear for trial. The circuit court did not first determine the circumstances of why counsel had failed to appear, nor did it find that the failure was due to willful disobedience of the court.
The homeowners filed a timely motion for rehearing pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530 and to vacate the final order pursuant to rule 1.540(b). The motion explained that the homeowners’ counsel expected to receive notice if the case was going to be reached for trial on any particular day of the designated trial week, but he had not received any notice. He explained that the nonappearance was, at worst, excusable neglect due to lack of notice. The trial court denied the motion.
The homeowners filed a renewed motion for rehearing and to vacate the dismissal order, attaching a supporting affidavit and explaining that counsel inadvertently had not attached an affidavit to the original motion for relief from the order. The renewed motion also explained that counsel had not been included on the judicial assistant’s trial-notification emails. Even so, the circuit court denied the renewed motion as well.
The homeowners retained SSRGA to pursue an appeal. In our briefs, we argued that the dismissal order was void because the homeowners’ counsel was not provided notice of the specific date and time the trial would begin, and this lack of notice violated due process. We also argued that the record showed that the nonappearance was, at worst, excusable neglect, and that the harsh sanction of dismissal was not warranted—particularly the homeowners themselves were not culpable.
The appellate court agreed with our position and reversed the dismissal order, remanding for a new trial. The appellate court found that the trial court’s self-created “opt-in” e-mail notification system is flawed because it may fail to provide notice to an attorney when there is an update to the trial schedule. If the attorney inadvertently has not provided an email address to the judicial assistant for use in that particular system, the attorney will not receive notice that the
case has been reached for trial. The appellate court held that any dismissal order resulting from this lack of notice violates due process and is void.
The appellate court held that even if the lack of notice could be attributed to counsel’s failure to provide an e-mail address to the judicial assistant, the record showed that the failure was, at worst, excusable neglect warranting relief under rule 1.530. The court also emphasized that the severe sanction of dismissal was not warranted where nothing in the record indicated that the homeowners themselves were culpable.
The appellate court reversed the dismissal order and remanded the case for a new trial. In a footnote, the appellate court strongly encouraged the trial court to start using the state e-filing portal’s e-service function, or to modify its proprietary e-mail notification system to include all of the e-mail addresses within the e-filing portal’s list, to ensure that all parties within the portal’s e-service list will receive notice when a case is reached for trial.
SSRGA is pleased that this result restores the homeowners’ opportunity to have their claims heard on the merits and returns the case to the circuit court for a new trial.
*The appellate opinion is not final until the disposition of any timely motion for rehearing.