ATLANTIC ASPHALT & EQUIPMENT CO., INC., APPELLANT,
v.
FELICIANO MORENO MAIRENA, 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.
Atlantic Asphalt appealed a trial court's denial of its motion to vacate a default judgment. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Atlantic satisfied all three requirements for vacating a default: excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and due diligence in moving to set aside the default.
The court held that Atlantic established all three requirements necessary to have its motion to vacate granted. The court reversed the trial court's order denying the motion and remanded the case with directions to set aside the default.
[1] A defendant's neglect in responding to a complaint is excusable when the inadvertence was due to the mishandling or misfiling of suit papers.
[2] A defendant seeking to vacate a default must establish excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and due diligence in moving to vacate.
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 defendant's neglect in responding to a complaint is excusable when the inadvertence was due to the mishandling or misfiling of suit papers.”
Establishes the legal standard for excusable neglect in the context of default judgments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAtlantic Asphalt was served with a complaint but failed to file a responsive pleading, resulting in a default entry on July 9, 1990. The summons and c…
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 Vacating Default Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Atlantic Asphalt & Equipment Co. [Atlantic], appeals from a non-final order denying Atlantic’s motion to vacate the default. We reverse and remand.
The plaintiff, Feliciano Moreno Mairena, brought suit against Atlantic and served the complaint on Atlantic’s registered agent. Atlantic did not file a responsive pleading and, as a result, the clerk entered a default on July 9, 1990. As soon as Colin Cash, Atlantic’s president, learned of the entry of the default, he notified Atlantic’s attorney, Perry Itkin. Itkin in turn attempted to reach the plaintiff’s attorney on July 13, 1990. When the attorneys finally spoke on July 16, 1990, the plaintiff’s attorney told Itkin that the plaintiff would not agree to vacate the default. Itkin informed the plaintiff’s attorney that he intended to file a motion to vacate. Itkin testified that based upon this conversation he believed that he had been given an extension to file the motion to vacate.
On September 6, 1990, Atlantic filed the motion to vacate the default. The trial judge denied Atlantic’s motion based on his conclusion that Atlantic failed to demonstrate excusable neglect. Atlantic appeals contending that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Atlantic’s motion to vacate.
We agree.
Atlantic has established all three requirements in order to have its motion to vacate granted.
First, Atlantic established excusable neglect in not timely responding to the plaintiff’s complaint. Atlantic’s motion to vacate together with the affidavits and testimony of Colin Cash established that the summons and complaint were inadvertently misfiled and misplaced due to an error in office communication. See North Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849, 853 (Fla.1962); Fortune Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 490 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Cash erroneously believed the papers had been forwarded to the insurance carrier. “A defendant’s neglect in responding to a complaint is excusable when the inadvertence was due to the mishandling or misfiling of suit papers.” Hialeah, Inc. v. Adams, 566 So. 2d 350, 350-51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (citations omitted).
Second, the defendant established a meritorious defense to the negligence claim by the proposed answer attached to its motion to vacate which sets out its affirmative defenses. See Fortune, 490 So. 2d at 249.
Third, Atlantic established that it acted with due diligence in moving to vacate the default. See Id.; B.C. Builders Supply Co. v. Maldonado, 405 So. 2d 1345, 1347-48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Cash acted with due diligence when he called Atlantic’s attorney within seventy-two hours of the entry of the default and requested that steps be taken to have the default set aside. See Apolaro v. Falcon, 566 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
Additionally, although the motion to vacate was not filed until September 6, 1990, the plaintiff’s attorney was contacted within four days of the entry of the default and notified of Atlantic’s intentions to set aside the default. See Id. As a result of the phone call, the plaintiff had actual knowledge of Atlantic’s intentions in the matter and is unable to claim any prejudice with respect to Atlantic’s delay in seeking to set aside the default. See Franklin v. Franklin, 573 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA, 1991); Apolaro, 566 So. 2d at 817.
For the foregoing reasons, the order denying Atlantic’s motion to vacate the clerk’s default is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court with directions to set aside the default.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. v. Ronco Inventions, LLC, 890 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…r in those decisions.” Id. at 404 n. 5. In the next two cases, the Third District reversed trial court decisions denying motions to vacate defaults where the periods of delay substantially exceeded twenty days. Atl. Asphalt & Equip. Co. v. Mairena, 578 So. 2d 292 (Fla.3d DCA 1991) (approximately fifty-five days); Roberts v. Safeway Ins. Co., 610 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (sixty-six days or longer). In both of these cases, the court did not mention the twenty-day rule of thumb or cite to its recent opinio…1 / 2
-
Cinkat Transp., Inc. v. Md. Cas. Co., 596 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…, 558 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Second, Cinkat asserted a meritorious defense to plaintiffs claim in its proposed answer setting out its affirmative defenses, which was attached to its motion to vacate. Atlantic Asphalt & Equip. Co. v. Mairena, 578 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Fortune Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 490 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Finally, Cinkat acted with due diligence in filing its motion to vacate. Although Cinkat did not file a motion to vacate for over two months after entry of the defau…
-
Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Thornberry, 629 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…established precedent, a mis-routing of suit papers under circumstances like these has been held to constitute excusable neglect. See North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849, 850 (Fla.1962); Atlantic Asphalt & Equipment Co. v. Mairena, 578 So. 2d 292, 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Hialeah, Inc. v. Adams, 566 So. 2d 350, 350-51 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 576 So. 2d 284 (Fla.1990). The plaintiffs also claim that GMAC committed a procedural error when it raised the affirmative defense of statute of l…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- N. Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1962)
- B. C. Builders Supply Co., Inc. v. Maldonado, 405 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Apolaro v. Falcon, 566 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Hialeah, Inc. v. Adams, 566 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Franklin v. Lizzie Franklin, 573 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Fortune Ins. Co. v. Vincente Sanchez, Jr., 490 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)