JESUS M. SILVA AND OLGA SILVA, HIS WIFE, PETITIONERS,
v.
PEDRO REALTY, INC., RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court resolved a jurisdictional conflict among district courts regarding whether an order denying a motion to vacate a default judgment is appealable. The Court held that such orders are appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), approving the Third District's decision and disapproving contrary holdings from the Second and Fourth Districts.
An order denying a motion to vacate a default judgment is appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv). The Court's recent decision in Doctor's Hospital of Hollywood, Inc. v. Madison resolved the conflict among district courts on this issue.
[1] An order denying a motion to vacate a default is appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv).
[2] Decisions holding that an order denying a motion to vacate a default is not appealable are disapproved.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Our recent decision in Doctor's Hospital of Hollywood, Inc. v. Madison, 411 So. 2d 190 (Fla.1982), which holds that an order denying á motion to vacate a default is appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), resolves this conflict.”
Establishes that the Supreme Court's prior decision in Doctor's Hospital resolves the jurisdictional conflict among the district courts.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSilva and his wife filed a notice to invoke discretionary review challenging a Third District decision that had found an order denying a motion to vac…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.130(A)(3)(C)(Iv) cases and more on FLexlaw
[*873] PER CURIAM.
The sole question before us for review is whether an order denying a motion to vacate a default is appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv).1 The District Court of Appeal, Third District, in the case now before us held that it was appealable. Pedro Realty, Inc. v. Silva, 392 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). This holding directly and expressly conflicts with Caribbean Agencies, Inc. v. Agri-Export, Inc., 384 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), and Moody v. Moody, 371 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), which hold that the district court is without jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate a default.
Our recent decision in Doctor’s Hospital of Hollywood, Inc. v. Madison, 411 So. 2d 190 (Fla.1982), which holds that an order denying á motion to vacate a default is appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), resolves this conflict.
Accordingly, we approve the decision of the Third District in Pedro Realty, Inc. v. Silva and disapprove the decisions of the Fourth and Second Districts in Caribbean Agencies, Inc. v. Agri-Export, Inc. and Moody v. Moody.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur. . By Notice to Invoke Discretionary Review filed March 16, 1981, petitioners sought review of the Third District’s decision reported at 392 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), on the basis of conflict with several cited decisions. Their brief on jurisdiction was limited to an explanation of conflict between this district court decision denying dismissal of the appeal and the several decisions which announced contrary holdings. We accepted jurisdiction to review this decision of the district court based on express and direct conflict. Petitioners now, in their brief on the merits, attempt to argue the merits of the decision properly before us as well as the subsequent decision of the Third District decided April 28, 1981, Pedro Realty, Inc. v. Silva, 399 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), which decision is not properly before us for review. We will not consider any argument directed to the propriety of the second decision from which no notice of review was sought.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Doctor's Hosp. OF Hollywood, Inc. v. Hunter W. Madison, 411 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1982)
- Pedro Realty Inc. v. Silva, 399 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Caribbean Agencies, Inc. v. Agri-Export, Inc., 384 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Pedro Realty, Inc. v. Silva, 392 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Moody v. Moody, 371 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)