CARTER, HAWLEY, HALE STORES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
STANLEY WHITMAN, DUDLEY A. WHITMAN AND WILLIAM F. WHITMAN D/B/A BAL HARBOUR SHOPS, APPELLEES
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 appellate court reversed an order denying a motion to vacate a default judgment. The court found that the corporate defendant's failure to timely respond to a complaint was due to excusable neglect, as the complaint was lost in transit and on the general counsel's desk. The court emphasized a policy favoring trials on the merits when a meritorious defense exists.
Yes, the court held that the circumstances constituted excusable neglect. The court reversed the denial of the motion to vacate the default judgment.
[1] A breakdown in a corporate defendant's established practice, resulting in a complaint becoming lost among unrelated documents on a general counsel's desk, may constitute…
[2] A meritorious defense and due diligence after discovering a default weigh in favor of trying cases on their merits and against upholding defaults.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“It has been often held that such a scenario constitutes “excusable neglect,””
Establishes the court's finding that the defendant's situation qualified as excusable neglect.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA corporate defendant failed to timely answer a complaint due to a breakdown in its internal process. The complaint was sent from Florida to the corpo…
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
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate a default. The record shows that the tardiness in answering was occasioned by a neglectful, but understandable, breakdown in the corporate defendant’s established practice which occurred when the complaint, which had been transmitted from Florida to the corporate secretary at the company’s national headquarters in Los Angeles, became “lost” in a pile of unrelated documents on the desk of the general counsel, who was responsible for 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 DCA 1972); Imperial Indust., Inc. v. Moore Pipe & Sprinkler Co., 261 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); see also Credit Gen. Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 515 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), and we do so again. Since it is conceded that the defendant presented a meritorious defense and that it acted with due diligence after discovering the default, we apply our established rules which militate against defaults and in favor of trying cases on their merits, see Kuehne & Nagle, Inc., 467 So. 2d at 458, and reverse the order below.
Reversed.
. The appellee relies upon a letter, concerning the ongoing dispute which was the subject of the case, which was mailed to the defendant and its general counsel after the filing of the complaint but before it was served. We cannot agree that this document, in which there was arguably some reference to the fact that an action had been commenced, had any effect either upon the duties of the general counsel or the defendant itself to respond to service which had not yet been effected or the degree of fault involved in not timely doing so.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Marshall Davis, Inc. v. Incapco, Inc., 558 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…iled a sworn affidavit, stating that it had an established corporate policy for handling lawsuits which was not followed in this case. Courts of Florida have held that this constitutes excusable neglect. Carter, Hawley, Hale Stores, Inc. v. Whitman, 516 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Plotkin v. Deatrick Leasing Co., 267 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Finally, Marshall Davis presented a meritorious defense. We conclude that the preceding facts established that the trial court abused its discretion when it ref…
-
Hialeah, Inc. v. Adams, 566 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…] mishandling or misfiling of suit papers. See Associated Medical Inst., Inc. v. Imperatori, 338 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); see generally, North Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849 (Fla.1962); Carter, Hawley, Hale Stores, Inc. v. Whitman, 516 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). In the instant case, the defendant’s motion to vacate coupled with the registered agent’s sworn affidavit established sufficiently that the summons and complaint were inadvertently mishandled by the clerical staff. Thus, we find…
-
Edwards v. Elisha Najjar and Ruth Najjar, 748 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…tional headquarters in Los Angeles, became ‘lost’ in a pile of unrelated documents on the desk of the general counsel, who was responsible for retaining a local attorney to file an appropriate response.” Carter, Hawley, Hale Stores, Inc. v. Whitman, 516 So. 2d 83, 83-84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (citing, inter alia, Edwards v. City of Fort Walton Beach, 271 So. 2d 136 (Fla.1972)) (remaining citations omitted). The appropriate showing of excusable neglect was made here. Ordinarily the defendant’s mail handling syst…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kit C. Edwards v. City OF Fort Walton Beach, 271 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 1972)
- Associated Med. Insts., Inc. v. Imperatori, 338 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Collie v. State, 261 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Imperial Indus., Inc. v. Moore Pipe & Sprinkler Co., 261 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Plotkin v. Deatrick Leasing Co., 267 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- LaNorris Hobbs v. State, 264 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- C.A.S. v. State, 467 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Kuehne & Nagel, Inc. v. Esser Int'l, Inc., 467 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Credit Gen. Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 515 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)