PUNTA GORDA PINES DEVELOPMENT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
SLACK EXCAVATING, 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.
Punta Gorda Pines Development, a corporation, appealed the entry of a default judgment against it for filing an initial answer through its vice president rather than through an attorney. The court reversed, holding that although corporations must be represented by attorneys in Florida courts, a party may file a proper pleading at any time before a default is entered, thereby precluding entry of default.
A default judgment was properly reversed. Although Florida law requires corporations to be represented by attorneys in court proceedings, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(c) permits a party to plead or defend at any time before a default is entered, and appellant's filing of a proper answer before default was entered precluded the subsequent entry of default.
[1] A corporation must be represented by an attorney when appearing in Florida courts.
[2] A pleading filed by a corporation without an attorney is a nullity.
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“A corporation must be represented by an attorney when it appears in the courts of the State of Florida.”
Establishes the foundational rule requiring corporate representation by counsel in Florida proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee sued appellant corporation seeking to foreclose a lien on real property. Appellant timely filed an answer signed only by its vice president. …
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 Foreclosure Of Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant seeks reversal of an order granting appellee’s motion for the entry of a default. The order is subject to appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv). Doctor’s Hospital of Hollywood, Inc. v. Madison, 411 So. 2d 190 (Fla.1982).
Appellee sued appellant, a Florida corporation, seeking to foreclose a lien on real property. Appellant timely served and filed an answer which was signed only by its vice president. After twenty days from the date of service of the complaint on the appellant had passed, appellee filed a motion to strike and for entry of a default on the premise that a corporation may only file pleadings through an attorney. Before the hearing on the motion took place, appellant served and filed a second answer through an attorney. Thereafter, the court struck appellant’s pleadings and entered a default against it for failing to file a proper response within the time required by law. The court noted “that the pleadings drafted by the defendant were obviously prepared by a person with substantial legal training who would have known that they were a nullity.”
A corporation must be represented by an attorney when it appears in the courts of the State of Florida. Quinn v. Housing Authority of Orlando, 385 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Nicholson Supply Co. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, 184 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). Thus, appellant’s original answer filed through its vice president could not be deemed a proper pleading. However, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(c) provides that a party may plead or otherwise defend at any time before a default is entered. Therefore, appellant’s ultimate filing of a proper answer precluded the subsequent entry of a default.
Our sister court decided the same issue in Leon Shaffer Golnick Advertising, Inc. v. Cedar, 423 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The defendant’s attorney had filed only a notice of appearance within twenty days after service of process on his client. After the plaintiff moved for default but before the hearing on the motion, the defendant’s attorney filed an answer. Thereafter, the trial court entered a default. While lamenting the misuse of the notice of appearance, the appellate court reversed because of the defendant’s right “to plead or otherwise defend at any time before default is entered.” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.500(c).
We reverse the order of default and remand for further proceedings.
SCHEB and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Richter v. Higdon Homes, Inc., 544 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…olson Supply Co. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n of Hardee County, 184 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); See also Szteinbaum v. Kaes Inversiones y Valores, 476 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Punta Gorda Pines Dev., Inc. v. Slack Excavating, Inc., 468 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Hub Financial Corp. v. Olmetti, 465 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Daytona Migi Corp. v. Daytona Automotive Fiberglass, Inc., 417 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Angelini v. Mobile Home Village, Inc., 310 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 1st DC…
-
Belki A. Cabral v. City OF Miami Beach, 76 So. 3d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…e required notices were given, and to properly present this issue to the trial court in the context of a summary judgment motion, see Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510, or in a motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(c); Ashley v. Lamar, 468 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The City’s contention that it had not received timely notice is an affirmative defense that is not properly raised in a motion to dismiss. On motion for rehearing, Ms. Cabral refuted that the statute of limitations had run and…
-
Castle Club Corp. v. Liberty Int'l, Inc., 598 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…counsel was an abuse of discretion. This was particularly egregious in the case of a corporation which cannot represent itself, but would be error in any event.”) (citations omitted). See also Punta Gorda Pines Dev., Inc. v. Slack Excavating, Inc., 468 So. 2d 438, 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (corporation must be represented by attorney when it appears in Florida courts). There is no evidence in the record that the prior continuances obtained in this case were engineered to prevent its orderly disposition, or that…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Leon Shaffer Golnick Advertising, Inc. v. Cedar, 423 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Doctor's Hosp. OF Hollywood, Inc. v. Hunter W. Madison, 411 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1982)
- Nicholson Supply Co., Inc. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Hardee Cnty., 184 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Quinn v. The Hous. Auth. OF the City OF Orlando, 385 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)