Case Name: STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, an agency of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Paul PLUNSKE, State Paving Corporation, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1972-05-12
Citations: 267 So. 2d 337
Docket Number: No. 71-950
Parties: STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, an agency of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Paul PLUNSKE, State Paving Corporation, et al., Appellees.
Judges: WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 267
Pages: 337–341

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, an agency of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Paul PLUNSKE, State Paving Corporation, et al., Appellees.
No. 71-950.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
May 12, 1972.
Barbara McPherson, Joseph C. Young and Geoffrey B. Dobson, Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, for appellant.
No appearance for appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This appealed order ostensibly entered on stipulation is void and reversed for the following reasons:
1. The notice of hearing was insufficient. It was oral and its bizarre method of transmittal to appellant's counsel in Tallahassee and the fact that it was not received by counsel a reasonable length of time before the time specified for hearing (counsel had less than two hours notice and was about 400 miles away in an incon-vient location when reached indirectly) renders same legally insufficient and the action taken consequent to it invalid.
F.R.C.P. 1.090(d), 30 F.S.A. plainly requires that "a copy of the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served a reasonable time before the time specified for the hearing." (Emphasis supplied.) That concept of fairness and due process was well discussed in Prunty v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 226 So.2d 448,
"No rule is more firmly founded in the jurisprudence of this state than that it is a denial of due process of law to hold a hearing on a motion without notice to the parties involved in an adversary proceeding and to enter an order on the motion' without first giving the parties affected notice and an opportunity to be heard before a party's rights are taken away. See, for example, Brooker v. Smith, 101 So.2d 607 (Fla.App. 1958).
"This rule was stated by the Supreme Court of Florida in Mayflower Inv. Co. v. Brill, 137 Fla. 287, 188 So. 205 (1939), as follows:
'It is fundamental that due process guarantees to a party notice and an opportunity to be heard before his rights are taken away from him by or der, decree or judgment of any court. See Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274, 23 L.Ed. 914; Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409, 17 S.Ct. 841, 42 L.Ed. 215; Glazer v. Rosoff, 120 Conn. 120, 179 A. 407; Hunter v. May, 161 Tenn. 155, 25 S.W.2d 580.' "
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d) likewise requires reasonable notice of hearings. It prescribes five days, but this time limit isn't hard and fast, provided the party had actual notice and time to prepare. See Herron v. Herron, 5th Cir. 1958, 255 F.2d 589, and Marshall Durbin Farms, Inc. v. National Farmers Organization, Inc., 5th Cir. 1971, 446 F.2d 353.
2. The person attending the so-called hearings was without authority to enter into a settlement or stipulation and did not, in fact, do so. 15 Am.Jur.2d, Compromise and Settlement, § 9. Court and counsel had specific written notice from the Department of Transportation's counsel, before entry of appealed order, that Mr. Cox, a non-lawyer, was not authorized to enter into stipulations or accept notice and that the Department of Transportation did not agree to such stipulation.
3. There is no evidence that appellant authorized or ratified the purported settlement. Walters v. Boscia, Fla.App. 1965, 179 So.2d 133; Palm Beach Royal Hotel, Inc. v. Breese, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 698; Bursten v. Green, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So.2d 472.
Finally, it is the policy of the law to encourage and favor the compromise and settlement of controversies when such settlement is entered into fairly and in good faith by competent parties. 6 Fla. Jur., Compromise and Settlement, § 4. However, settlements forced or not agreed serve to deprive a litigant of due process and his proper day in court, and hence cannot be sanctioned.
The order is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., concur.
M AGER, J., dissents.
. (State of Florida Department of Transportation letterhead, dated July 13, 1971) "Dear Mr. Rubin: This is in response to your letter of July 8, 1971, addressed to Mr. Ode E. Cox, an employee of this Department. To your letter you attached a proposed Stipulation and Order. Mr. Cox is not an attorney for the Department but is instead an employee, an engineer of the Department. I am sure that your correspondence and other communications to Mr. Cox without my knowledge, as attorney of record, has been an oversight on your part, and I will treat it thusly.
"I found it extremely disturbing that you called up a hearing before the court without noticing any counsel of record, the sole notice being a telephone call to the Department's district engineer with the message being left with his secretary, the district engineer being out of town. Mr. Cox is not and has never been authorized to enter into any stipulations or other contracts on behalf of the Department with any person whomsoever. Under the Florida Highway Code the power to contract and to incur fiscal obligations is vested in the Secretary of Transportation. When matters pertaining to law suits against the Department are presently in litigation, I will honor any stipulation or agreement entered into by an attorney in my office. I do not and will not honor agreements made by non-lawyers who are not authorized to do so. "As to the particular stipulation and order which you submitted to Mr. Cox, I find that it is erroneous in that it recites that the court has heard arguments of counsel for all parties. Inasmuch as no attorney representing the Department of Transportation was noticed for any hearing in which Mr. Cox appeared, no counsel for the Department or for the other defendants, State Paving Corporation and the State of Florida, were present.
"I will carefully review the proposed stipulation with our engineering staff and advise you as to whether the Department is agreeable to the terms thereof.
"I trust that the above is explanatory of the Department's position. I trust that in the future all correspondence by you will be directed to me as counsel of record. Sincerely yours, GEOFFREY B. DOBSON General Counsel GBD: jr cc: The Honorable Arthur J. Franza; Bryan W. Henry, Esq.; Ralph J. Ray, Jr., Esq."