SUSAN MAOUNIS,
v.
IGOR SHAMIS,
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 Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a dispute between Susan Maounis and Igor Shamis, upholding rulings on service of process, default judgment, and liquidated damages claims under Florida law.
The court affirmed the lower court's decisions, applying established standards: service by central authority under the Hague Convention is prima facie evidence unless the defendant shows lack of actual notice or prejudice; default may be vacated only upon showing excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and due diligence; and liquidated damages clauses are enforceable if damages are not readily ascertainable and the amount is not grossly disproportionate to expected losses.
[1] A denial of a motion to quash service is reviewed de novo.
[2] The return of a central authority's completed certificate of service under the Hague Convention is prima facie evidence of service.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 return of the central authority's completed certificate of service is prima facie evidence of service by the central authority”
Establishes that proof of service by Hague Convention is presumptively valid unless defendant shows lack of actual notice or prejudice
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe opinion does not provide detailed facts about the underlying dispute between the parties. The court's analysis focuses on legal standards for revi…
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 Meritorious Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed.
Bevilacqua v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 194 So. 3d 461, 463–65 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (stating that a denial of a motion to quash service is reviewed de novo and explaining that under the Hague Convention “the return of the central authority’s completed certificate of service is prima facie evidence of service by the central authority” and to overcome such evidence a defendant must show a “lack of actual notice of the proceedings or that the defendant was prejudiced in some way as a result of the alleged deficiency” (citations omitted)); see also Lloyd’s Underwriter’s At London v. Ruby, Inc., 801 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“An order denying a motion to vacate a default is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.”); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980) (“If reasonable [people] could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion.”); Gibson Tr., Inc. v. Office of the Att’y. Gen., 883 So. 2d 379, 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“To be relieved of a default, a party must show excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and due diligence.”); Hyman v. Cohen, 73 So. 2d 393, 401 (Fla. 1954) (instructing that a liquidated damages clause may be enforced where (1) the damages are not readily ascertainable at the time the contract is drawn and (2) the amount of liquidated damages is not “grossly disproportionate” to what might be expected to result from the buyer’s breach); San Francisco Distrib. Ctr., LLC v. Stonemason Partners, LP, 183 So. 3d 391, 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (explaining that Florida courts addressing this issue have held that a forfeiture amount of 10% or less of the total purchase price is not unconscionable and upholding a forfeiture of $400K that amounted to 7.6% of the purchase price).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Gibson Tr., Inc. v. Allen, 883 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Renato Bevilacqua v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 194 So. 3d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- SAN Francisco Distrib. Ctr., LLC v. Stonemason P'rs, LP, 183 So. 3d 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)