MILTON A. NORVILLE, PH.D. D/B/A EAST SHORES PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES AND COMPREHENSIVE HOMECARE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
BELLSOUTH ADVERTISING AND PUBLISHING CORPORATION, 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.
Milton Norville appeals a default judgment and writ of execution seeking to satisfy the judgment against his personal property. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that because BellSouth sued Norville only in his business capacity (as a dba entity), not as an individual, the judgment cannot be executed against his personal assets.
The judgment cannot be executed against Norville's personal property because BellSouth's complaint sued only the business entity, not Norville individually. The judgment against the dba entity does not bind Norville's personal assets.
[1] A default judgment entered against a non-party constitutes fundamental error.
[2] A party's personal assets are protected from execution pursuant to a judgment against their corporation when the lawsuit did not name the individual party.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Entering a judgment against a non-party is fundamental error.”
Establishes the core legal principle that the trial court violated by entering judgment against Norville individually when he was not sued in that capacity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBellSouth filed suit against 'Milton A. Norville, Ph.D. d/b/a East Shores Psychological Services and Comprehensive Homecare, Inc.' and characterized t…
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 Default Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Milton A. Norville, Ph.D. (Nor-ville), d/b/a East Shores Psychological Services and Comprehensive Homecare, Inc., appeals a writ of execution to satisfy a default judgment in favor of appellee, Bell South Advertising and Publishing Corporation (Bell South). We reverse.
Bell South filed suit against “Milton A. Norville, Ph.D. d/b/a East Shores Psychological Services and Comprehensive Homecare, Inc.” Bell South’s complaint characterized the appellant as “a corporation doing business in North Miami.” Because the appellant failed to file an answer to the complaint, the trial court entered a default judgment in favor of Bell South.
After entering the default judgment, the trial court held that Bell South could recover against Norville’s noncorporate property. While Norville challenges execution against his personal property, he neither challenges the propriety of the default judgment nor seeks to have the judgment set aside.
Entering a judgment against a non-party is fundamental error. Alger v. Peters, 88 So. 2d 903 (Fla.1956) (en bane); see Chase v. Turner, 560 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Pan Am. Bank of Miami v. Osgood, 383 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 392 So. 2d 1877 (Fla.1980); Moretto v. Staub, 370 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Board of Pub. Instruction of Dade County v. Feller, 219 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert, denied, 225 So. 2d 917 (Fla.1969).
As stated by the Florida Supreme Court, “[i]t is so fundamental to our concept of justice that a citation of supporting authorities is unnecessary to hold that the rights of an individual cannot be adjudicated in a judicial proceeding to which he has not been made a party and from which he has literally been excluded by the failure of the moving party to bring him properly into court.” Alger, 88 So. 2d at 906.
Here, nothing in the complaint indicated Bell South intended to sue Norville as an individual. To the contrary, the language of the case caption shows that Bell South sued the business conducted by Norville in his professional capacity. Bell South’s failure to sue Norville individually protects Nor-ville’s personal assets from execution pursuant to the judgment against Norville’s corporation. See Harris v. Martin, 606 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (holding that judgment against party “as trustee” was not against party individually).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Katarina Loidl v. I & E Grp., Inc., 927 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…Civil Procedure 1.280(c) or from an improper trial subpoena under rule 1.410, it should be obvious that the nonparty has no reason to believe that the court will proceed to enter judgment against it. Cf. Norville v. BellSouth Adver. & Publ’g Corp., 664 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding entering judgment against non-party is fundamental error). Likewise, a [*1020] property owner who has been subjected to an improper notice of lis pendens has received no summons or other judicial process and has not been…
-
Beseau v. Kirit Bhalani, M.D., 904 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…n. See Fisher v. State, 840 So. 2d 325, 330 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (restitution order entered against mother of juvenile who appeared only as parent and not as party violated due process and was void); Norville v. Bell South Advertising & Publ’g Corp., 664 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (judgment against nonparty fundamental error). Accordingly, we vacate the orders and amended orders to the extent that the awards were made against Appellant in her individual capacity. Vacated in Part; Affirmed in Part. THOMPS…
-
Corredor v. Nichols, 342 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…awards for $95,578.18. We affirm the entirety of the substantive rulings incorporated in the final judgment, however reverse because “[e]ntering a judgment against a nonparty is fundamental error.” Norville v. Bellsouth Advert. & Publ’g Corp., 664 So. 2d 16, 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). While a receiver is entitled to compensation which includes a reasonable sum for attorney’s fees, Burlington is not a party to the underlying suit despite being the court appointed counsel for the receiver. See Se. Bank,…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mason W. Alger v. Peters, 88 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1956)
- Duff v. State, 225 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 1969)
- Tillman v. Wainwright, 225 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 1969)
- Gino Moretto v. Werner Staub, 370 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- PAN Am. Bank OF Miami & Pan Am. Bancshares, Inc. v. Osgood, 383 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- The Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Dade Cnty. v. Dena Feller, 219 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Chase v. Turner, 560 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Harris v. Martin, 606 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)