County Case No. 99-SP13-0747
Appeal No. BB-49
May 18, 2000

MICHAEL WILLIAMS, and MINNIE E. WILLIAMS,

Appellants,

vs.

ROBERT ARNOLD, and RAYMOND JONES,
as an officer of LAKE ALFRED ALUMINUM,

Appellees.

_________________________________________

This is an appeal from the county court of Polk County. Appellants, the plaintiffs below, represented themselves in a negligence action against Robert Arnold, and Raymond Jones an officer of Lake Alfred Aluminum. Appellants represent themselves in this appeal. They seek review of the trial court’s denial of their motion for continuance. This court has jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030. The ruling of the county court is affirmed.

Appellants filed a complaint for negligence against Arnold for roof repairs to their home. The trial date was set for August 4, 1999. After the pretrial conference, Appellants filed a motion to add Lake Alfred Aluminum as a defendant. The court granted Appellants’ motion. Appellants "expected" to have another pretrial conference on their motion to add defendant Lake Alfred Aluminum. The day before trial, Appellants telephoned the clerk’s office to inquire about a pretrial conference date for their motion. The clerk advised them that the trial was set for August 4, 1999. Appellants state that they "expected" the trial for defendant Lake Alfred Aluminum would be 10 to 60 days from the date of a pretrial conference on their motion. At trial on August 4, the Appellants appeared but requested a continuance because they did not have photographs they intended to present as evidence, and because they were not prepared to argue against Lake Alfred Aluminum. The trial court denied the motion.

The decisions of a trial court are presumptively correct. Chiles v. State Employees Attorney’s Guild, 734 So. 2d 1030, 1034 (Fla. 1999). To succeed on appeal, Appellant must demonstrate reversible error. Id.

Civial actions are governed by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Under the Rules, the order granting their motion did not create a separate action. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.250(c). By their own testimony, Appellants were notified by the pretrial order and the clerk’s office that their trial would commence on August 4, 1999. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.200 (d) states, "the order shall control the subsequent course of action unless modified to prevent injustice." At no time do Appellants allege that the pretrial order was modified, only that they expected that it would be. This court finds no error.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the ruling of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

ORDERED 18 May 2000.

Charles B. Curry

Chief Judge