RONALD G. WILLIAMS, ONYX FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., AND INTERCO FUNDING GROUP, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
DIRECT DISPENSING, INC., 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.
Appellants challenge a default judgment for $2.85 million entered against them without notice or opportunity to be heard on damages. The court held that while default on liability may be entered, unliquidated damages require notice and a hearing, and reversed the judgment on damages while affirming the default on liability.
Yes. While default judgments may establish liability, a trial with proper notice is required to establish unliquidated damages. The trial court reversibly erred by failing to provide appellants at least 30 days' notice in advance of a hearing on damages as required by Rule 1.440(e).
[1] A default judgment can establish liability, but a trial with proper notice is required to determine unliquidated damages.
[2] A defaulting party has a due process entitlement to notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the presentation and evaluation of evidence necessary for a judicial d…
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“Although a default judgment can be entered to establish liability, a trial with proper notice is necessary to establish unliquidated damages.”
Establishes the core legal principle that liability and damages determinations are treated differently in default cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee filed a complaint against appellants alleging negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and conspiracy to defraud related to an invest…
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 Unliquidated Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants appeal an interlocutory order denying their motion to set aside a default judgment and for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 1.540(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Appellee filed and served a complaint against the appellants alleging negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and conspiracy to defraud. The claims were based upon an investment banking operation involving an initial public offering of securities. Appellee alleged that it sustained unliquidat-ed damages as a result of appellants’ conduct.
Thereafter, appellee moved for default and for entry of a final default judgment because appellants failed to file an answer to the complaint. Neither appellants nor their counsel appeared at the hearing on the motion. After the hearing, the trial court entered a default against appellants and a final judgment for $2,850,000.00.
It is undisputed that appellants were never served with a copy of the final judgment. Appellants first became aware of the final judgment more than thirty days later at a hearing on an unrelated matter. Subsequently, appellants moved to set aside the default and for relief from final judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). The trial court denied appellants’ motions.
Appellants assert that the trial court reversibly erred by entering an adverse final judgment for unliquidated damages without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard on the issue of damages pursuant to Rule 1.440(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. We agree.
Although a default judgment can be entered to establish liability, a trial with proper notice is necessary to establish unliquidated damages. Dysart v. An Ultimate Pool Serv. & Repair, Inc., 536 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Lauxmont Farms, Inc. v. Zentner, 514 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). As we stated in Buffington v. Torcise, 504 So. 2d 490, 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), “[w]hen a claim involves unliquidated damages ‘[a] defaulting party has a due process entitlement to notice and opportunity to be heard as to the presentation and evaluation of evidence necessary to a judicial determination of the amount of [those] damages.’ ” (quoting Bowman v. Kingsland Dev., Inc., 432 So. 2d 660, 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)).
In this ease, although appellants received a notice of hearing on the motion for default, they did not receive at least thirty days notice in advance of the hearing on the issue of damages. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.440(e). There fore, the trial court erred in denying appellants’ motion to set aside the default judgment on the issue of damages. Accordingly, we affirm the default judgment entered on the issue of liability, set aside the final judgment and remand for a determination of damages.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Flagship Nat'l Bank OF Miami v. Gray Distrib. Sys., Inc., 432 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Buffington v. Torcise, 504 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Lauxmont Farms, Inc. v. Zentner, 514 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Dysart v. AN Ultimate Pool Serv. & Repair, Inc., 536 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)