JOSEPH LABARCA D/B/A LA PALOMA MOTEL, APPELLANT,
v.
RCA SERVICE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
LaBarca, a motel owner, appeals an interlocutory order denying his motion to vacate a default judgment entered after he failed to respond to a replevin suit filed by RCA Service Company. The court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion where LaBarca failed to support his excuse with sworn evidence and his counsel failed to appear at critical hearings.
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate, finding no abuse of discretion. LaBarca failed to support his alleged excusable neglect with any sworn pleading or evidence, and his counsel never appeared to support the motion or oppose subsequent motions.
[1] An interlocutory order denying a motion to vacate a default judgment is reviewable on appeal.
[2] A motion to vacate a default judgment must be supported by sworn pleadings or evidence to demonstrate excusable neglect.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“No abuse of discretion has been demonstrated by appellant. Not only did he fail to support his alleged excusable neglect by any sworn pleading or evidence but appellant's counsel never appeared to support the motion to vacate the default or in opposition to the motion to strike.”
The court's primary basis for affirming the denial of the motion to vacate—establishing the dual failures of unsupported allegations and counsel's non-appearance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaBarca contracted with RCA Service Company to furnish and maintain television sets and a telephone system at his motel. When LaBarca became delinquen…
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 Motion To Vacate Default Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
[*886] DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of an interlocutory order denying his motion to vacate a default judgment. We have jurisdiction to review said order pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv). See Doctor’s Hosp. of Hollywood v. Madison, 411 So. 2d 190 (Fla.1982).
Appellant, the owner and operator of a motel, entered into a contract with appellee whereby appellee furnished and maintained a number of television sets and a comprehensive telephone system for appellant’s motel. When appellant became delinquent in his monthly installment payments appel-lee filed suit for replevin and damages on December 9, 1982. Appellant was served with the complaint, summons, and prejudgment writ of replevin, and the personal property involved was delivered to appellee.
Upon being served appellant called his lawyer and thereafter mailed the suit papers to the lawyer’s office. When no response was filed, appellee sought the entry of a default on January 6, 1983. On January 11, 1983, a default was entered.
Appellant filed an unsworn motion to vacate the default on January 14, 1983, alleging that defense counsel was moving his office from Miami Beach to North Miami Beach and as a result he did not receive the sent papers until January 13,1983, although he had notified the post office of his change of address. Appellant also filed a notice of hearing set for February 11, 1983, on his motion to vacate. Appellee’s counsel appeared at said hearing but counsel for appellant did not. After a substantial delay the court heard appellee’s argument and denied the motion to vacate.
In the meantime on February 9, 1983, appellant had filed an answer and counterclaim. Appellee responded with a motion to strike and noticed said motion for February 21, 1983. Counsel for appellant once again failed to appear and the trial court granted appellee’s motion to strike.
No abuse of discretion has been demonstrated by appellant. Not only did he fail to support his alleged excusable neglect by any sworn pleading or evidence but appellant’s counsel never appeared to support the motion to vacate the default or in opposition to the motion to strike.
Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and DELL, J., concur.
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)