Baute v. Crenshaw
After voluntarily dismissing a trust-accounting/breach-of-trust suit against a trustee, the plaintiff filed a new suit against the same person individually for tortious interference with an expected inheritance; the trial court stayed the new suit under Rule 1.420(d) until costs from the prior suit were paid. The Sixth DCA granted certiorari and quashed the stay, holding the two suits lacked identity of causes of action and that no order liquidating a specific amount of costs had been entered, so a Rule 1.420(d) stay was unavailable.
Key facts
- Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed a trust-accounting and breach-of-trust suit against a trustee, then filed a new suit against the same person individually for tortious interference with an expected inheritance.
- The trial court stayed the second suit under Florida Rule 1.420(d), conditioning resumption on payment of costs from the first suit, which had not been liquidated or specified in any order.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
This is the Sixth DCA's first substantive treatment of Rule 1.420(d) stays and gives practitioners a clean two-part roadmap for defeating (or supporting) such stays: strict identity-of-claims analysis and the… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.