Case Name: Barbara T. SUMMERLIN, as Executrix of the Estate of William H. Tinsman, Deceased, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. John R. EPPS, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1976-12-17
Citations: 340 So. 2d 1228
Docket Number: No. 76-1065
Parties: Barbara T. SUMMERLIN, as Executrix of the Estate of William H. Tinsman, Deceased, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. John R. EPPS, Respondent.
Judges: CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 340
Pages: 1228–1229

Head Matter:
Barbara T. SUMMERLIN, as Executrix of the Estate of William H. Tinsman, Deceased, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. John R. EPPS, Respondent.
No. 76-1065.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Dec. 17, 1976.
Jonathan D. Schuman, of Weathers & Narkier, West Palm Beach, for petitioners.
Stephen N. Montalto, of Mark Marks, P. A., North Miami, and Martha C. Warner of Neill, Griffin, Jeffries & Lloyd, Fort Pierce, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The petition for writ of certiorari to review an order of the trial court denying petitioners' motion for leave to file a counterclaim in a suit formerly cognizable at law is denied upon authority of the following decisions of this court: Siegel v. Abramowitz, 309 So.2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Solitron Devices, Inc. v. Reiland, 311 So.2d 729 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Santini Brothers, Inc. v. Grover, 338 So.2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
We fully recognize that the Third District Court of Appeal held to the contrary on almost identical facts in Romish v. Albo, 291 So.2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). But as the above cited decisions of this court pointed out, the kind of order now before us is reviewable on plenary appeal. If on plenary appeal reversible error is found to inhere in said order, petitioner would be entitled to litigate her proposed counterclaim. Surely under these circumstances where petitioner attempted to assert the counterclaim in this suit, the compulsory counterclaim rule would not militate against her.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari DENIED.
CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
MAGER, C. J., dissents, with opinion.