WJA REALTY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM SCHOFILL, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to set aside a clerk's default and final judgment, finding excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and due diligence under the applicable standard.
A defendant may obtain relief from a clerk's default and subsequent final judgment by demonstrating excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and due diligence in moving to vacate.
[1] A clerk's default and final judgment may be set aside upon showing of excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and due diligence in moving to vacate.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWJA Realty, a limited partnership, failed to timely respond to a three-count complaint due to miscommunication with its counsel regarding retention, r…
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 Clerk'S Default cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant WJA Realty, Limited Partnership from a non-final order denying the defendant’s motion to set aside (1) a clerk’s default on a three-count complaint and (2) a subsequent final judgment entered thereon. We have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), (a)(5).
We reverse the orders under review and remand the cause to the trial court with directions to set aside the clerk’s default and final judgment entered thereon. We reach this result because the defendant demonstrated below (1) excusable neglect in failing to respond timely to the plaintiff’s complaint due to a miscommunication between the defendant and its counsel that counsel was being retained to respond to the subject complaint, see Somero v. Hendry General Hosp., 467 So. 2d 1103, 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 476 So. 2d 674 (Fla.1985); B.C. Builders Supply Co. v. Maldonado, 405 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); (2) a meritorious defense with the answer and affirmative defenses attached to its motion to vacate, see Somero; B.C. Builders Supply Co.; and (3) due diligence in moving to set aside the clerk’s default upon learning of the default. See Cunningham v. White, 390 So. 2d 467, 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). We have not overlooked the plaintiffs contrary arguments, but are not persuaded by them.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Glenna Somero and Robert Somero v. Hendry Gen. Hosp., 467 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- B. C. Builders Supply Co., Inc. v. Maldonado, 405 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Cunningham v. Clancie White and Essie White, 390 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)