ROBERT SCHAUER AND MARLENE SCHAUER, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
DALE B. COLEMAN AND LINDA COLEMAN, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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 Schauers obtained a default judgment for specific performance against the Colemans for breach of a property purchase agreement. Four months later, the Colemans moved to set aside the final judgment under Rule 1.540, claiming fraud and the lack of counsel at the default hearing. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Colemans failed to demonstrate either excusable neglect or a meritorious defense required to set aside a default judgment.
No. The appellate court held that to set aside a default judgment, a party must demonstrate both (1) a legal excuse for not complying with procedural rules and (2) a meritorious defense. The Colemans' general denial of factual allegations and claim of lack of counsel were insufficient to satisfy these requirements, making the trial court's order setting aside the judgment a gross abuse of discretion.
[1] A party seeking to set aside a default judgment must demonstrate both excusable neglect for failing to comply with procedural rules and a meritorious defense.
[2] A general denial of factual allegations does not suffice as a meritorious defense for the purpose of setting aside a default judgment.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In order to set aside a default judgment, a party must demonstrate (1) a legal excuse for not complying with the civil procedure rules and (2) a meritorious defense.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for setting aside default judgments under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Schauers sued the Colemans to enforce a property purchase agreement. After the Colemans failed to respond, a default was entered and a final heari…
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 For Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
The Schauers appeal a nonfinal order setting aside a default judgment in their favor. They argue the trial court erred by setting aside the final judgment based on its finding that earlier testimony was incorrect. We agree and reverse.
The Schauers filed a complaint to enforce an agreement to purchase property from the Colemans. Based on the Colemans’ failure to respond in the action, the Schauers filed for and the clerk entered a default under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(a).
A final hearing was held before Judge Whitte-more and all parties attended. Although no record of the hearing was made, the judge entered specific findings and conclusions. A copy of these findings was sent to the Cole-mans with a letter indicating final judgment would be held for ten days to allow time for the Colemans to contact an attorney. After the ten days, the final judgment was entered granting specific performance by ordering the Colemans to convey title to the Schauers. The Colemans did riot file a motion for rehearing nor did they appeal.
Four months later, the Schauers filed a motion for contempt or for judgment vesting-title, alleging that the Colemans refused to execute the deed. After this motion was set for hearing, the Colemans filed a motion for relief from final judgment under Rule 1.540 on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation. This motion was signed by counsel for the Colemans. The motion disputed whether the Schauers had paid the entire down payment as they alleged; it also asserted that the Colemans did not have counsel at the final hearing.
At the second hearing, Judge Gonzalez presided and heard testimony and argument on the Colemans’ motion for relief. The judge then set aside the final judgment, finding that the Schauers had paid only $3,000 of the total $5,000 down payment and that the amortization schedule was incorrectly calculated because of this.
In order to set aside a default judgment, a party must demonstrate (1) a legal excuse for not complying with the civil procedure rules and (2) a meritorious defense. Kapetanopoulos v. Herbert, 449 So. 2d 947, 949 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
The facts establishing excusable neglect must be set forth in a sworn document. DeRuyter v. State, 521 So. 2d 135, 136 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), disapproved on other grounds, 605 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1992). The meritorious defense must be asserted either by pleading or affidavit. 521 So. 2d at 137. In this case, the Colemans filed a motion disputing the Schauers’ factual allegations and asserting they lacked counsel at the final default hearing. A general denial does not suffice as a meritorious defense for a default judgment. 521 So. 2d at 137. And absent other justifications, failure to hire counsel does not qualify as excusable neglect. Kapetanopoulos, 449 So. 2d at 949.
Thus, the Colemans have failed to show either excusable neglect or a meritorious defense. In the absence of these two requirements, the trial court’s order setting aside the final default judgment was a gross abuse of discretion. Florida Specialized Carriers, Inc. v. Tierra Constr. Co., Inc., 632 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
Accordingly, we reverse, remand for the reinstatement of the final default judgment in favor of the Schauers, and order the trial court to enter judgment vesting title.
FRANK, C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Geer v. David Neal Jacobsen, Brian James Almengual, & Almengual & Warner, P.A., 880 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…. 2d 1153, 1158 n. 6 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Concerning a meritorious defense, it must be asserted either by a pleading or in an affidavit, and a general denial is insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense. Schauer v. Coleman, 639 So. 2d 637, 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); see also Collins, 519 So. 2d at 730. If a defendant is relying on a factual defense to obtain relief from a default judgment, the ultimate facts establishing the defense must be set forth in a verified answer, sworn motion,…
-
DiSARRIO v. Mills, 711 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…t to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) based on excusable neglect. Excusable neglect requires a showing of both a legal excuse for failing to comply with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and a meritorious defense. See Schauer v. Coleman, 639 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Collins v. Collins, 519 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The brief motion filed with the trial court offered no explanation for counsel’s failure to appear aside from conclu-sory allegations of mistake and excusable neglect. At the…
-
Paul v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 68 So. 3d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…s Mrs. Paul, who claimed excusable neglect based on her mental ailments. Thus, the governing principle may be more accurately stated as “absent other justifications, failure to hire counsel does not qualify as excusable neglect.” Schauer v. Coleman, 639 So. 2d 637, 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (emphasis added) (citing Kapetanopoulos v. Herbert, 449 So. 2d 947, 949 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)). Alternatively, Wells Fargo argued that Mrs. Paul did hire counsel and that counsel failed to answer the complaint. Wells Fargo used…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Butterworth v. Caggiano, 605 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1992)
- S. Trail Fire Control Dist. & Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 449 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Kapetanopoulos v. Herbert, 449 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- DeRUYTER v. State, 521 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Durgin v. State, 632 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Fla. Specialized Carriers, Inc. v. Tierra Constr. Co., Inc., 632 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)