KUEHNE & NAGEL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ESSER INTERNATIONAL, INC., A FLORIDA 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.
Kuehne & Nagel appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to vacate a default judgment entered against it. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to vacate the default when the defendant demonstrated meritorious defenses and excusable neglect for the brief delay in filing its answer.
The trial court abused its discretion by refusing to vacate the default. When a defendant demonstrates meritorious defenses and excusable neglect for a brief delay in pleading, the default must be set aside to allow the case to proceed on its merits.
[1] A trial court should vacate a default and set aside a default judgment when the defendant presents a meritorious defense and demonstrates excusable neglect, absent prejud…
[2] The policy of Florida courts favors setting aside defaults to permit a trial on the merits.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The Florida Supreme Court has established a policy of providing relief from defaults and allowing trials on the merits. If there is any reasonable doubt in the matter of vacating a default, it should be resolved in favor of granting the application and allowing the trial upon the merits.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard favoring vacatur of defaults when reasonable doubt exists
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn July 24, 1984, one day after defendant's answer was due, plaintiff took a default judgment against defendant. On July 30, defendant filed a motion …
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 Excusable Neglect cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
On July 24, 1984, the day after the defendant-appellant’s answer was due, the plaintiff took a default. On July 30, the defendant filed a motion to vacate which indisputably demonstrated several meritorious defenses and showed that the brief delay in pleading was caused by “excusable neglect,” that is, the action of a clerk in the office of the defendant’s New York attorney who mistakenly removed the complaint and summons from counsel’s desk and filed them away. We conclude, as we have repeatedly in similar instances in the recent past, that the trial court’s failure to set the default aside was a clear abuse of discretion. E.g., Wien v. Quayside Realty, Inc., 462 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) and cases cited; Huerta v. Sapkin, 459 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); B.C. Builders Supply Co., Inc. v. Maldonado, 405 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); see North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849 (Fla.1962); Savela v. Fisher, 464 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). As the court correctly summarized the law in Zimmerman v. VinylGrain Industries of Jacksonville, Inc., 464 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985):
The Florida Supreme Court has established a policy of providing relief from defaults and allowing trials on the merits. If there is any reasonable doubt in the matter of vacating a default, it should be resolved in favor of granting the application and allowing the trial upon the merits. North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849 (Fla.1962). Although an abuse of discretion is necessary in order to reverse a trial court’s ruling on a motion to vacate default, appellate courts need not find as great a showing of abuse to reverse a trial court’s denial of a motion to vacate default as they do to reverse a grant of such a motion. Garcia Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Diaz, 351 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
464 So. 2d at 1354.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Carter v. Whitman, 516 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…or retaining a local attorney to file an appropriate response. It has been often held that such a scenario constitutes “excusable neglect,”1 Edwards v. City of Fort Walton Beach, 271 So. 2d 136 (Fla.1972); Kuehne & Nagle, Inc. v. Esser Int’l, Inc., 467 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Associated Medical Institutions, Inc. v. Imperatori, 338 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Plotkin v. Deatrick Leasing Co., 267 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Renuart-Bailey-Cheely Lumber & Supply Co. v. Hall, 264 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d…
-
Jones v. State, 492 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…red the said warehouse with intent to commit an offense therein and, by so doing, committed a third degree burglary prohibited by Section 810.02(1), (3), Florida Statutes (1983). See Toole v. State, 472 So. 2d 1174, 1175 (Fla.1985); C.A.S. v. State, 467 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). There is, further, no evidence whatever that the defendant committed an attempted burglary. Section 777.04(1), Florida Statutes (1983), which prohibits criminal attempts, provides: “(1) Whoever attempts to commit an offense pro…
-
DeRUYTER v. State, 521 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…lorida Aviation Academy v. Charter Air, 449 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (error caused by inexperienced secretary’s failure to calendar time for filing answer, contrary to established office procedure); Kuehne & Nagel, Inc. v. Esser International, 467 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (error caused by clerk in attorney’s office who mistakenly removed complaint and summons from attorney’s desk for filing), an attorney’s inadvertent failure to respond to a complaint without more does not constitute excusable negl…
Previewing 3 of 11 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)
- B. C. Builders Supply Co., Inc. v. Maldonado, 405 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Garcia Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Diaz, 351 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Ward D. Zimmerman v. Vinylgrain Indus. OF Jacksonville, Inc., 464 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Wien v. Quayside Realty, Inc., 462 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Savela v. Fisher, 464 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- F. Rene de la Huerta, M.D. v. Saphin, 459 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)