KITCHEN DESIGN CABINETS, INC.
v.
DIONYSIA BENTLEY
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 affirmed the trial court's order denying a motion to vacate a clerk's default. The court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate excusable neglect and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its factual findings.
No, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to vacate the default. The determination of excusable neglect is a factual one for the trial court, and without a transcript, the appellate court cannot find an abuse of discretion.
[1] The determination of whether particular conduct constitutes excusable neglect is a factual matter to be decided by the trial court, not the appellate court, and is review…
[2] An appellant cannot establish abuse of discretion in a trial court's denial of a motion to vacate default without providing trial transcripts that would allow appellate r…
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“Excusable neglect is found ‘where inaction results from clerical or secretarial error, reasonable misunderstanding, a system gone awry or any other of the foibles to which human nature is heir.’”
Defines excusable neglect, setting the standard for the appellant's argument.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant failed to timely respond to a complaint, leading to a clerk's default and a subsequent motion for final judgment by default. The appella…
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 Factual Issues cases and more on FLexlaw
JAY, J.
Appellant appeals from the Order of Final Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff, entered in response to Appellee’s Motion for Final Judgment by Default. Appellant alleges that the trial court erred in denying its motion to vacate the clerk’s default. We affirm. Among other arguments, Appellant asserts that its failure to timely respond to the complaint was due to excusable neglect. “Excusable neglect is found ‘where inaction results from clerical or secretarial error, reasonable misunderstanding, a system gone awry or any other of the foibles to which human nature is heir.’” Emerald Coast Utils. Auth. v. Bear Marcus Pointe, LLC, 227 So. 3d 752, 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (citations omitted). But, “[t]he law
requires certain diligence of those subject to it, and this diligence cannot be lightly excused.” Id. (citation omitted). “[T]he determination of whether particular conduct constitutes excusable neglect . . . is a factual one, to be decided by the trial judge.” Bruce J. Berman & Peter D. Webster 4 Fla. Prac., Civil Procedure § 1.540:6 (2021). This makes it “the duty of the trial court, not the appellate court, to make the determination whether the facts constitute excusable neglect[.]” Church v. Strickland, 382 So. 2d 419, 420 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, “the facts . . . are of singular importance in determining whether relief should be granted.” Benefit Admin. Sys., LLC v.
W. Kendall Baptist Hosp., Inc., 274 So. 3d 480, 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (citation omitted). Here, the trial court “weighed the evidence, made credibility determinations,” and concluded that Appellant had no entitlement to relief. Id. Without any transcripts, we have no means by which to review the trial court’s resolution of these important factual issues.
Thus, Appellant has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“[T]he appellate court can not [sic] properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal.”). AFFIRMED. B.L. THOMAS and WINOKUR, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Minor St. LP v. Allen (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
-
Pshs Alpha P'rs, Ltd v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)
-
Pshs Alpha P'rs, Ltd v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Henry Church v. Strickland, 382 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Benefit Admin. Sys., LLC v. W. Kendall Baptist Hosp., Inc., 274 So. 3d 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)