Dieuline Alerte v. Wilny Decaus
Docket 4D2025-1413
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Florida
- Court
- District Court of Appeal of Florida
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Docket
- 4D2025-1413
Appeal from a county court default final judgment in a small claims action following denial of a motion to continue
Summary
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a default final judgment entered in a small claims case because the defendant, a self-represented litigant, had notified the trial court before a pretrial conference that she could not attend due to a death in her family. The trial court entered default when she did not appear and later denied her motion to continue. The appellate court found that the denial was an abuse of discretion because the reason was unforeseeable, not suggestive of delay, and the default deprived the defendant of an opportunity to be heard. The case is remanded for further proceedings.
Issues Decided
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defendant's motion to continue a pretrial conference
- Whether entry of a default judgment was proper where the defendant gave advance notice she could not attend due to a death in the family
Court's Reasoning
The court applied the standard that continuance decisions rest within the trial court's discretion but must consider whether the reason was unforeseeable, whether denial would cause injustice, and whether the opposing party would be prejudiced. The defendant notified the court in advance of an unforeseeable family death and showed no sign of dilatory conduct. Denying the continuance led directly to a default judgment, depriving her of any chance to present a defense, and the record contained no indication that the plaintiff would be prejudiced by a short continuance.
Authorities Cited
- Fleming v. Fleming710 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
Parties
- Appellant
- Dieuline Alerte
- Appellee
- Wilny Daceus
- Judge
- Edward A. Garrison
Key Dates
- Opinion date
- 2026-04-22
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Proceed to county court for new scheduling
The county court should set a new date for the pretrial conference or hearing and consider the defendant's request for a continuance on the record.
- 2
Prepare to present or defend the case
Both parties should be ready to proceed on the new date; the defendant should gather documents and witnesses to support her defense and, if possible, provide more detail or proof regarding the reason for the prior absence.
- 3
Consider filing a motion for rehearing if appropriate
A party dissatisfied with the appellate outcome may evaluate whether to file a timely motion for rehearing in the Fourth District before the decision becomes final.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the appeals court decide?
- The appeals court reversed the default judgment and sent the case back to the county court for further proceedings because denying a continuance for a reported death in the family was an abuse of discretion.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The defendant (Dieuline Alerte) is directly affected because she regained the opportunity to present a defense; the plaintiff (Wilny Daceus) will have to proceed in the county court again.
- What happens next in the case?
- The county court will resume proceedings consistent with the appellate decision, which may include setting a new hearing or pretrial conference and considering the defendant's motion to continue.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- Potentially, a party could seek further review if permitted by appellate rules, but the opinion notes it is not final until disposition of any timely motion for rehearing.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
DIEULINE ALERTE,
Appellant,
v.
WILNY DACEUS,
Appellee.
No. 4D2025-1413
[April 22, 2026]
Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach County; Edward A Garrison, Judge; L.T. Case No.
502025SC004989XXXAMB.
Dieuline Alerte, Delray Beach, pro se.
No brief filed on behalf of appellee.
PER CURIAM.
In this small claims case, the defendant, proceeding pro se, appeals a
default final judgment entered after she failed to appear at a pretrial
conference and the trial court’s subsequent denial of her motion to
continue. We reverse.
The day before the scheduled pretrial conference, the defendant filed a
written request to reschedule, stating that there had been a death in her
family. The following day, the trial court entered a default final judgment
based on her nonappearance. Several days later, the trial court then
denied her motion to reschedule.
A motion for continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the
trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion.
Fleming v. Fleming, 710 So. 2d 601, 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). However, in
exercising that discretion, courts consider whether the reason for the
continuance was unforeseeable and not the result of dilatory practices,
whether denial would result in injustice, and whether the opposing party
would suffer prejudice. Id.
Applying those principles here, we conclude that the denial of the
continuance constituted an abuse of discretion. The defendant notified
the trial court prior to the hearing that she could not attend due to a death
in the family—an event that is inherently unforeseeable and, in the record
before this court, not suggestive of dilatory conduct. The denial of the
continuance resulted in the entry of a default judgment, effectively
depriving the defendant of any opportunity to be heard on her motion to
continue or otherwise present a defense. Nothing in the record suggests
that granting a brief continuance would have prejudiced the plaintiff or
disrupted the proceedings even to simply verify the veracity of the
defendant’s motion.
While the defendant’s motion was brief and lacked detail, this case
arises in the small claims context and involves a self-represented litigant
who provided advance notice of circumstances which appeared to have
been beyond her control. Under these circumstances, the trial court’s
refusal to continue the hearing and its entry of a default judgment
constituted an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, we reverse the default final judgment and remand for
further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
GROSS, CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.
2