Torrey v. Leesburg Regional Medical Center
Florida Supreme Court
769 So. 2d 1040 (2000)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Becky Torrey (plaintiff), in her capacity as the personal representative of the estate of Helen Rose Woodard, filed a wrongful-death action against Leesburg Regional Medical Center (LRMC) (defendant). Torrey’s complaint was prepared, signed, and timely filed by a Michigan attorney (Torrey’s attorney) who was not licensed to practice law in Florida. LRMC moved to disqualify Torrey’s attorney. Torrey’s attorney responded, presented evidence that other attorneys in his office were licensed in Florida, and requested permission to appear on Torrey’s behalf along with Florida-licensed co-counsel. The trial court gave Torrey’s attorney the requested permission. LRMC then moved to dismiss Torrey’s complaint, arguing that the complaint was a nullity because it was signed by an attorney who was not licensed to practice law in Florida. The trial court asked Torrey’s attorney to submit evidence that the defects in the complaint were the result of excusable neglect. In response, Torrey’s attorney submitted an affidavit stating that the mistake occurred because he had been in a rush to submit the complaint due to a misunderstanding about when the relevant statute of limitations expired. The trial court dismissed Torrey’s action without prejudice, holding that, because Torrey’s attorney failed to establish excusable neglect, Torrey’s defective complaint must be classified as a nullity. Because the dismissal occurred after the expiration of the relevant statute of limitations, Torrey was unable to refile her wrongful-death action. Torrey appealed, arguing that she should have been allowed to amend her complaint to avoid dismissal. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a complaint signed by an attorney who was not licensed in Florida was a nullity and could not be amended. Because of the way the appellate court framed the issue on appeal, it did not address excusable neglect. Torrey appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Shaw, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.