Laserfiche WebLink
provided in rule 1.080 and upon persons not parties in the manner provided for the service of a <br /> summons." Ha. R. Civ. P. 1.260(a)(1). <br /> Here, Respondent did not file a motion to substitute party, as required by Rule 1.260(c), <br /> but instead filed a Notice of Substitution.3 Because Respondent failed to follow the proper <br /> procedure set forth in Rule 1.260(c), and because the Notice of Substitution was filed at the <br /> eleventh hour, Petitioner was not given a full and fair opportunity to be heard on the matter. Cf. <br /> Metcalfe v. Lee, 952 So. 2d 624, 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (explaining that "[a] notice of hearing <br /> must accompany the motion" and that "[o]nce the motion and notice of hearing are timely made, <br /> . . . it is then up to the trial court to decide whether there is a proper party to be substituted <br /> during the mandated hearing on the motion" (emphasis added)). <br /> Indeed, while Petitioner did not dispute the transfer of interest had occurred, Petitioner <br /> preferred the court join Ms. Tucker with the original Respondent, Mr. Tucker—which is one of <br /> the options available to the court under Rule 1.260(c)—rather than dropping Mr. Tucker as a <br /> Respondent altogether. Alternatively, the court had the discretion to order that the action be <br /> continued in Mr. Tucker's name alone. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.260 ("In case of any transfer of <br /> interest, the action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon <br /> motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or <br /> joined with the original party." (emphasis added)). Either option would have ensured that <br /> Petitioner received a fair trial against the party against whom it had been litigating for three <br /> years. Instead, the court allowed Mr. Tucker to prevail in his last-minute attempt to skew the <br /> results of trial. Ms. Tucker was nothing more than a last minute proxy for Mr. Tucker to gain <br /> sympathy from the jury. <br /> 3 In addition, Respondent did not file a notice of hearing_ on his Notice of Substitution. Instead, the Notice of <br /> Substitution was addressed on the morning trial itself was to begin, and only because Petitioner asked the Court to <br /> address the issue. Trial T. 248-52. <br /> 16 <br />