NATIONAL PREMIUM BUDGET PLAN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ALL AMERICAN ASSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court reversed trial court's order vacating a default judgment, holding that a defendant's reliance on another to defend and a corporate office move do not constitute excusable neglect warranting relief from default.
Excusable neglect sufficient to vacate a default judgment is not established by proof that defendant relied on another to defend the action or that defendant moved its corporate offices without losing the complaint.
[1] Excusable neglect to warrant vacating a default judgment is not established by defendant's reliance on another to defend the action, corporate office relocation without l…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Excusable neglect sufficient to warrant vacating a default is not shown by mere proof that the defendant relied upon another to defend the action”
Court establishing the standard for excusable neglect in default cases
All American Assurance Company was served with a complaint, moved its corporate offices, and failed to respond. The trial court set aside the default …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Vacating Default Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The order of the trial court setting aside a default and default judgment entered against All American Assurance Company is reversed with directions that the judgment in favor of National Premium Budget Plan Corporation be reinstated.
Excusable neglect sufficient to warrant vacating a default is not shown by mere proof that the defendant relied upon another to defend the action, see Allen v. Wright, 350 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); White v. Spears, 123 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). Nor does proof that the defendant, after being served with the complaint, moved its corporate offices, where such move did not involve losing, misplacing or misfiling of the complaint, compare North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849 (Fla.1962); Associated Medical Institutions, Inc. v. Imperatori, 338 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), or a failure to follow corporate procedures, Plotkin v. Deatrick Leasing Co., 267 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), establish excusable neglect. Where, as in the present case, counsel for the defendant, in possession of the complaint and fully aware of the precariousness of the defendant’s position some four months before entry of the default judgment, compare Miami Commonwealth Realty Corp. v. Rinehart Volkswagen, Inc., 387 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), failed to move to vacate until after judgment was entered and nearly a year after service was effected, the trial court grossly abused its discretion in setting the default and default judgment aside.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
OLE, Inc. v. Yael Yariv, 566 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…te 3. Id. at 1030. Likewise, in Herrick the default was obtained only after due warning and appropriate notice to counsel, a situation not present here. Id. at 1030 & nn. 2-3. See abo National Premium Budget Plan Corp. v. All American Assurance Co., 389 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).…
-
Herrick v. Se. Bank, N.A., 512 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…relies on another to defend an action against him, he may seek relief from the consequences of the latter’s failure timely to do so only if that person has been excusably neglectful.1 National Premium Budget Plan Corp. v. All American Assurance Co., 389 So. 2d 324, 325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (“Excusable neglect sufficient to warrant vacating a default is not shown by mere proof that the defendant relied upon another to defend the action.”). In this case, the totally unexplained failure of the defendants-mortgagor…
-
Suntrust Mortg. v. Torrenga, 153 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…; Stamato v. Stamato, 818 So. 2d 662, 665 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“[P]laintiff s failure to ascertain whether the court had ruled is the type of inexcusable neglect which would bar relief....”); Nat’l Premium Budget Plan Corp. v. All Am. Assurance Co., 389 So. 2d 324, 325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (“Excusable neglect sufficient to warrant vacating a default is not shown by mere proof that the defendant relied upon another to defend the aetion[.]”). In contrast to those inexcusable neglect cases, the attorney’s uninten…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- N. Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1962)
- Angell M. White and Anna White v. Spears, 123 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Associated Med. Insts., Inc. v. Imperatori, 338 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Allen v. Wright, 350 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Plotkin v. Deatrick Leasing Co., 267 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Miami Commonwealth Realty Corp. v. Rinehart Volkswagen, Inc., 387 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)