JAMES G. DODRILL, II, ESQ., APPELLANT,
v.
INFE, INC., F/K/A INFE. COM., INC., A FLORIDA 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.
In this appeal of a default judgment vacated by the trial court, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the vacation order, holding that a sworn statement supporting a motion to vacate a default judgment need not be notarized and that an ambiguous notarial paragraph does not invalidate an affidavit that is otherwise properly sworn.
A sworn statement supporting a motion to vacate a default judgment need not be notarized. An affidavit is validly sworn under oath when the first paragraph establishes that the affiant is duly sworn and deposes the facts, satisfying section 92.525(4)(c), and an ambiguous or deficient notarial acknowledgment does not invalidate an otherwise properly sworn document.
[1] A sworn statement supporting a motion to vacate a default judgment satisfies statutory requirements if it includes a statement under oath or affirmation that the facts re…
[2] A document is considered verified and under oath if the initial paragraph explicitly states that the affiant appeared before an authorized officer, was duly sworn, and de…
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“BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared THOMAS RICHFIELD, having personal knowledge of the below-described matters and being duly sworn, deposes and says:”
This opening paragraph of the affidavit establishes that the affiant was duly sworn, satisfying the statutory requirement for a verified document under oath.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant plaintiff obtained a default judgment for attorney's fees against defendant. Defendant filed a rule 1.540(b) motion to vacate the default ju…
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 To Vacate Default Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant plaintiff obtained a default judgment for attorney’s fees against the defendant, but the trial court granted defendant’s rule 1.540(b) motion to vacate based on excusable neglect. We affirm, addressing only one issue, which is whether the sworn statement filed in support of the motion to vacate was technically proper. Plaintiff argues that the sworn statement, which is titled “Affidavit,” is deficient because of the following paragraph contained below the signature of the affiant and above the signature of the notary public.
I hereby certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeared, THOMAS RICHFIELD, known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Affidavit, who acknowledged before me that he executed the same, that I relied upon the following form of identification of the above named person: THOMAS RICH-FIELD, and that an oath was/was not taken. (Emphasis added.)
The emphasized portion did not state whether an oath was or was not taken, and plaintiff contends that this was the equivalent of an unsworn document. It therefore does not, according to plaintiff, satisfy the requirement that a motion to vacate a default must be under oath. Hall v. Byington, 421 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The document, however, states in the first paragraph: BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared THOMAS RICHFIELD, having personal knowledge of the below-described matters and being duly sworn, deposes and says:
This first paragraph qualifies this as a verified document under oath under section 92.525(4)(c), which states that a verified document means that the person “must state under oath or affirm that the facts or matters stated or recited in the document are true, or words of that import or effect.”
It was unnecessary for this sworn statement to be notarized. Mieles v. S. Miami Hosp., 659 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(medical expert’s sworn statement attached to medical malpractice plaintiffs notice of intent did not have to be notarized). The final paragraph, which is ambiguous, is accordingly of no import.
Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hall v. Eleanore Florence Byington & Rinker Materials Corp., 421 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Mieles v. S. Miami Hosp., 659 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)