Case Name: AL HENDRICKSON TOYOTA, INC., Appellant, v. Michael YAMPOLSKY, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-07-02
Citations: 695 So. 2d 948
Docket Number: No. 97-0078
Parties: AL HENDRICKSON TOYOTA, INC., Appellant, v. Michael YAMPOLSKY, Appellee.
Judges: WARNER, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 695
Pages: 948–948

Head Matter:
AL HENDRICKSON TOYOTA, INC., Appellant, v. Michael YAMPOLSKY, Appellee.
No. 97-0078.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
July 2, 1997.
Julie Greenberg Shapiro of Gaebe, Murphy, Mullen & Antonelli, Coral Gables, for Appellant.
Michael Yampolsky, Coral Springs, pro se.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The order granting summary judgment as to appellant's liability is reversed.
The order was entered based on technical admissions because appellant had failed to answer requests for admission. However, appellant filed a motion to allow late filing of responses based on excusable neglect. It attached affidavits from its counsel stating that the response date for answering had inadvertently not been calendared. The trial court denied the motion, but the established case law deems that calendaring errors are regarded as excusable neglect. See Wood v. Fortune Ins. Co., 458 So.2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Broward County v. Perdue, 432 So.2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The trial court erred in denying the motion to permit late filing of responses.
Without the technical admissions, the record has conflicting evidence as to the issue of liability. For these reasons, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings.
WARNER, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.