
    Marc A. OSHEROFF, Appellant, v. Leonard OSHEROFF, Appellee.
    No. 96-3535.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    June 4, 1997.
    Tew & Beasley and Steven M. Katzman and Charles S. Marion, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Harry A. Payton and Greg Tung Nguyen, for appellee.
    Before COPE and GREEN, JJ., and BARKDULL, Senior Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order entering default and default judgment against the defendant-appellant as a sanction because counsel filed a motion to dismiss instead of an answer pursuant to an agreed order requiring the filing of a “responsive pleading.” See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.100(a) (defining “pleadings”). “This was much too harsh a sanction for the minor dereliction involved and thus constituted a plain abuse of discretion.” Techno Indus. Corp. v. Cooper Indus., Inc., 410 So.2d 584, 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (citations omitted); see also Joseph v. Marese, 534 So.2d 920, 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Thaw, Gopman & Assocs., P.A v. Jack J. Greenberg, M.D. & Assocs., PA, 595 So.2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Accordingly the final judgment and default are reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.  