RUPERT WILLIAMS, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
ABRAHAM ADAMS, 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.
Williams and Top Brands Marketing appealed from a default judgment entered against them. The court reversed the default, finding that Williams and the corporation did not receive notice of Adams's application for default, which entitled them to relief without needing to show excusable neglect or a meritorious defense.
The court held that where no notification of an application for default is given to the defendant, the default may be set aside without requiring a showing of excusable neglect or a meritorious defense. Accordingly, the default judgment against Williams and Top Brands was reversed.
[1] A default judgment may be set aside when the party against whom the default was entered received no notice of the application for default.
[2] A court order directing that notices be sent to a party's residential address is ineffective if the party has moved from that address and no longer resides there.
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“where no notification of an application for default is given, that default may be set aside without a showing of excusable neglect or a meritorious defense”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that absence of notice alone justifies relief from default, citing Appliance & Refrigeration Distributors, Inc. v. Fedders USA Inc.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAdams sued Williams and Top Brands for equitable lien and quantum meruit. Both were properly served and represented by counsel. After settlement negot…
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 Notice Of Application For Default cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Top Brands Marketing and Rupert Williams, its sole stockholder, appeal from the entry of a default. We find that the principal claim, that Williams did not receive notice of Adams’s application for a default, is meritorious.
Adams brought an action for equitable lien and quantum meruit against Williams and Top Brands Auto. Williams was served by summons and process at his residence. The corporation was served at its business address. Williams, personally, and the corporation were represented by an attorney. After settlement negotiations collapsed, the trial court entered an order directing Williams and Top Brands to answer the complaint on or before May 11, 1992. On May 12, 1992, the attorney representing them procured an order permitting him to withdraw from further representation. In its order, the trial court directed that all further notices should be sent to Williams at his residential address. Williams subsequently failed to receive any notice; it appears he had moved from his residence just prior to the court order permitting his attorney’s withdrawal from further representation.
Never having gotten any response from Williams, Adams applied for a default and a motion to hold Williams in contempt. Notice of hearing was served upon Williams at the same non-current address. After Williams failed to appear, the court entered a writ of bodily attachment against him. Adams supplied the sheriff with Williams’s business address, and Williams was picked up at Top Brands and brought before the court. It is conceded by all that neither Williams nor the corporation received notice of the application for default or the notice of hearing thereon. For reasons not clear, Williams’s former attorney either through lack of communication, inadvertence, or other excusable neglect provided the court with an incorrect address for Williams. In Appliance & Refrigeration Distributors, Inc. v. Fedders USA Inc., 518 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 528 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1988), this court held that where no notification of an application for default is given, that default may be set aside without a showing of excusable neglect or a meritorious defense. Following Appliance, we find that these circumstances entitle Williams and Top Brands to relief from the default judgment and all subsequent orders.
For the foregoing reasons, the default entered against Williams and the corporation is reversed and the cause remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Corso v. Jaya Padmanabhan, M.D., 796 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…ntering a final judgment against appellant, who did not receive the order permitting defense counsel to withdraw, motion for default, default order, motion to set the case for trial, or order setting the case for trial. See, e.g., Williams v. Adams, 636 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). See also Bermuda Atl. Line Ltd. v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 622 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Seinsheimer Cos. v. Cobia Point Condo. Ass’n, 616 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Bridges v. Bridges, 520 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…
Authorities Cited
- Appliance & Refrigeration Distribs., Inc. v. Fedders USA, Inc., 518 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)