ZSUSZANNA VARGA AND ZOLTAN FUTAKI
v.
DONGAL INVESTMENTS
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 a lower court's denial of a motion to vacate a default judgment. The court found that the lower court failed to consider the necessary factors for vacating a default, despite the defendants' explanation of excusable neglect.
Yes, the lower court erred by denying the motion to vacate the default judgment without considering the required factors. The appellate court reversed the order.
[1] A default judgment may be vacated upon a showing of excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and due diligence in seeking relief.
[2] A trial court must consider the required factors when ruling on a motion to vacate a default judgment.
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“since this was a non-evidentiary hearing and the trial court’s final judgment order is devoid of any consideration of the factors to be considered when addressing a motion to vacate a default, we conclude that the lack of transcript does not preclude our review.”
Explains why the absence of a transcript did not prevent the appellate court from reviewing the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants Varga and Futaki sought to vacate a default final judgment for eviction, claiming a clerk mistakenly calendared the deadline to answer, pre…
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
KUNTZ, J.
Defendants Zsuzsanna Varga and Zoltan Futaki appeal an order denying a motion to vacate a default final judgment for eviction and a subsequent order denying a motion to restore possession. We reverse.
In their motion to vacate, the defendants attempted to establish mistake and excusable neglect. Through counsel, they explained that a clerk “mistakenly calendared the deadline to answer on his own personal calendar rather than the law office calendar so that an answer could not be properly filed.” The deadline was not viewable to counsel and, as a result, the defendants’ response to the complaint was not filed. The clerk signed a verification stating that “[t]he portions of this motion not constituting legal argument are attested to under oath and penalty of perjury.” At the same time the defendants served the motion to vacate, they also served an answer and affirmative defenses.
Beyond those limited facts, the record does not show much else. It does not appear the plaintiff filed a written response to the motion to vacate nor any conflicting evidence. Without more, we are left with an unrefuted motion signed under penalty of perjury and the court’s order denying the motion because “the defendants did not produce a witness for testimony or opportunity for cross examination.”
Unfortunately, we do not have a transcript of the fifteen-minute Zoom hearing, and the lack of a transcript often dooms an appellant’s argument. But “since this was a non-evidentiary hearing and the trial court’s final judgment order is devoid of any consideration of the factors to be considered when addressing a motion to vacate a default, we conclude that the lack of transcript does not preclude our review.” Quest Diagnostics, Inc. v. Haynie, 320 So. 3d 171, 174 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (citing Alsina v. Gonzalez, 83 So. 3d 962, 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)).
As in Haynie, the record does not show the court considered the factors a court must consider when presented with a motion to vacate a default.1
KLINGENSMITH, C.J., and MAY, J., concur. * * *
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Godinez v. State, 480 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Alsina v. Gonzalez, 83 So. 3d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Quest Diagnostics, Inc. v. Cheri Haynie, 320 So. 3d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)