EMMANUEL ROBERTS, APPELLANT,
v.
SAFEWAY INSURANCE COMPANY, AS SUBROGEE OF JACQUELINE RAHMINGS, 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.
Emmanuel Roberts appealed the denial of his motion to set aside a default judgment in a subrogation action. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, finding that Roberts' explanation for not receiving notice of the lawsuit constituted excusable neglect, he exercised due diligence upon learning of the judgment, and he had a meritorious defense based on the truck being impounded before the accident occurred.
The trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the default. Roberts' explanation for his failure to respond—that his wife did not give him the complaint due to marital discord—constituted excusable neglect, and his affidavits established he exercised due diligence upon learning of the judgment. Additionally, Roberts had a meritorious defense based on the truck being impounded before the accident occurred.
[1] A default judgment may be set aside upon a showing of excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and due diligence.
[2] A spouse's failure to inform the other spouse of service of process, particularly during marital discord, may constitute excusable neglect for failing to respond to a com…
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“The trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the default. Roberts' explanation for his failure to respond to the complaint in a timely manner constituted excusable neglect.”
States the core holding that Roberts met the excusable neglect requirement for vacating a default judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSafeway Insurance Company filed a subrogation action against Roberts on April 18, 1991, for damages from an accident involving his truck. Roberts' wif…
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.
Emmanuel Roberts appeals from an order denying his motion to set aside a default judgment. For the following reasons, we reverse.
On April 18, 1991, Safeway Insurance Company filed a subrogation action against Emmanuel Roberts for damages stemming from an accident involving Roberts’ truck. Roberts’ wife accepted service of the complaint, but never gave it to her husband or told him about it.
On June 28, 1991, a default judgment was entered against Roberts. Roberts did not learn of the judgment until February, 1992, when he went to renew his driver’s license. Roberts obtained counsel through a pro bono project.
On May 5, 1991, his counsel moved to set aside the default judgment, alleging excusable neglect and a meritorious defense.
The trial court denied the motion, indicating that insufficient reasons were given for failure to respond to the complaint. Roberts moved for reconsideration and filed affidavits in support of his motion. Roberts’ wife averred in her affidavit that she had been arguing with her husband when she received service of the complaint, was not on speaking terms with him, and therefore did not give him the papers and disposed of them. In his affidavit, Roberts averred that he did not learn of the action until he tried to renew his driver’s license, and that he sought to obtain an attorney through the Dade County Pro Bono Project. Not until March, 1992, was he able to meet with an attorney.
Moreover, Roberts then spent several weeks trying to obtain police reports. As a meritorious defense, Roberts explained that on January 13, 1990, his truck — the vehicle involved in the accident — was stolen, and that he reported it stolen on the same day. The truck was recovered on January 17, 1990, following a high speed chase, and was towed to the police lot and impounded. The accident that was the subject of this subrogation action did not occur until January 21, 1990, four days after the truck was impounded. Roberts filed a proposed answer and affirmative defenses which set forth the matters averred to in the affidavits.
The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration.
The trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the default. Roberts’ explanation for his failure to respond to the complaint in a timely manner constituted excusable neglect. See Diners Club, Inc. v. Brachvogel, 395 So. 2d 1156 (Fla.1981) (where husband failed to give wife complaint served against both or to inform her of service, and couple was having marital problems at the time, trial court did not abuse its discretion in vacating default judgment against wife); Shafey v. Tease, 332 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (same).
Although Roberts did not immediately move to set aside the default judgment upon learning of its existence, his affidavit establishes that he exercised due diligence under the circumstances. See Cinkat Transp., Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 596 So. 2d 746, 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“In considering a motion to set aside a default, courts must evaluate both the extent of the delay as well as the reasons for the delay.”) (citation omitted).
Finally, Roberts’ affidavit and proposed answer and affirmative defenses certainly set forth a meritorious defense. Having met all three requirements for vacating a default judgment, Roberts was entitled to the relief requested.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lazcar Int'l, Inc. v. Caraballo, 957 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…ed Trucking, 930 So. 2d 633, 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)(affirming an order granting a defendant’s motion to vacate default where defendant “filed two affidavits to support the claims of excusable neglect and due diligence”); Roberts v. Safeway Ins. Co., 610 So. 2d 700, 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(reversing an order denying a motion to vacate default judgment where defendant’s “affidavit establishes that [defendant] exercised due diligence under the circumstances”). In this case, the only explanation offered to excuse…
-
Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. v. Ronco Inventions, LLC, 890 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…al 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 opinion in Techvend. In the twelve years since these two cases were decided, the Third District has o…
-
Sundarampillai Jeyanandarajan v. Freedman, 863 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…tate any factual grounds upon which the movant relies has also been held to be an insufficient basis for setting aside a default. Id. at 1105-06. The third district considered a case similar to the instant case in Roberts v. Safeway Insurance Co., 610 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Safeway filed a subrogation action against Roberts for an accident involving his truck. Service of the complaint was made on Roberts’s wife but she never gave it to him or told him about it. A default was entered and Roberts did…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cash v. State, 596 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Cinkat Transp., Inc. v. Md. Cas. Co., 596 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Diners Club, Inc. v. Brachvogel, 395 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1980)
- Sherif Shafey, M.D. v. Tease, 332 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)