Case Name: COLOSO BOAT CORPORATION, an involuntarily dissolved Florida corporation, and Fasin and Orlando Betancourt, as trustees and last known directors of Coloso Boat Corporation, and Fasin Betancourt, Orlando Betancourt, International Leisure Products, Inc., Nora Betancourt and Graciela Betancourt, Appellants, v. Eddy SOUZA and Olivia Souza, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-07-23
Citations: 492 So. 2d 1100
Docket Number: No. 4-86-0378
Parties: COLOSO BOAT CORPORATION, an involuntarily dissolved Florida corporation, and Fasin and Orlando Betancourt, as trustees and last known directors of Coloso Boat Corporation, and Fasin Betancourt, Orlando Betancourt, International Leisure Products, Inc., Nora Betancourt and Graciela Betancourt, Appellants, v. Eddy SOUZA and Olivia Souza, Appellees.
Judges: DOWNEY, LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 492
Pages: 1100–1101

Head Matter:
COLOSO BOAT CORPORATION, an involuntarily dissolved Florida corporation, and Fasin and Orlando Betancourt, as trustees and last known directors of Coloso Boat Corporation, and Fasin Betancourt, Orlando Betancourt, International Leisure Products, Inc., Nora Betancourt and Graciela Betancourt, Appellants, v. Eddy SOUZA and Olivia Souza, Appellees.
No. 4-86-0378.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
July 23, 1986.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 11, 1986.
Daniel P. Tunick, Miami, for appellants.
Blaise Picchi, of Blaise Picchi, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order entered in supplementary proceedings following final judgment. Prior to ordering the impleading of the parties, who now appeal, the trial court should have issued an order to show cause which set forth the allegations against the appellants, thus giving them an opportunity to respond. Failure to do so prevented them from having their day in court. Robert B. Ehmann, Inc. v. Bergh, 363 So.2d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
Moreover, the trial court's order requiring the third parties to be examined in Broward County was error. Under section 56.29(2), Florida Statutes (1985), the trial court should arrange for a special master to examine them in the county where they reside. Their affidavit in this case establishes residence in Dade County. As a result, the trial court erred in requiring that the examination be conducted in Bro-ward.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DOWNEY, LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.