SALLY HEPBURN, APPELLANT,
v.
ALL AMERICAN GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CORP., D/B/A ALL AMERICAN GENERAL CONSTRUCTION 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.
Sally Hepburn obtained a default final judgment against All American General Construction Corporation for misleading advertising. The trial court granted All American's motion to vacate the judgment four months after All American received notice of the default. The appellate court reversed, holding that the four-month delay without exceptional circumstances constituted a lack of due diligence as a matter of law.
The court held that a four-month delay in filing a motion to vacate a default judgment after receiving notice constitutes a lack of due diligence as a matter of law absent competent substantial evidence of exceptional circumstances explaining the delay. All American failed to provide such evidence, with only a brief explanation that one attorney was on vacation until February 6.
[1] A party seeking to set aside a default final judgment must demonstrate excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and due diligence in seeking relief.
[2] A significant delay in filing a motion to vacate a default judgment after receiving notice constitutes a lack of due diligence as a matter of law, absent exceptional circ…
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“For a trial court to grant a motion to set aside a default final judgment, the moving party must show: (1) the failure to file a responsive pleading was the result of excusable neglect; (2) the moving party has a meritorious defense; and (3) the moving party acted with due diligence in seeking relief from the default.”
Establishes the three-part test required for vacating a default judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHepburn filed a complaint on October 21, 2005, alleging violation of a misleading advertising statute. A clerk's default was entered on December 9, 20…
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 Setting Aside Default Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
HAZOURI, J.
Sally Hepburn appeals from a trial court order granting All American General Construction Corporation’s motion to vacate a final judgment. We reverse with directions for the trial court to reinstate the judgment.
The following lists the sequence of events which led to the entry of the default final judgment. On October 21, 2005, Hepburn filed a one-count complaint alleging violation of a misleading advertising statute. On December 6, 2005, a motion for default was filed and on December 9, 2005, a clerk’s default was entered. On December 19, 2005, Hepburn filed her motion for entry of final judgment after default alleging the damages were liquidated. On December 22, 2005, a final judgment after default was entered by the trial court.
Thereafter, on January 9, 2006, Hepburn filed her motion for issuance of a writ of garnishment. A writ of garnishment was entered on January 10, 2006.
On January 23, 2006, All American retained counsel. A paralegal for All American’s counsel contacted Hepburn’s counsel, inquiring whether Hepburn’s counsel would consent to vacating and setting aside the final default judgment. Hepburn’s counsel would not agree to set aside the default final judgment. Hepburn’s counsel had no authority to agree to vacate and set aside the final default judgment and advised the paralegal that a motion to vacate would have to be filed.
On January 28, 2006, attorneys G. Russell Petersen and Barbara L. Sadaka filed their notice of appearance on behalf of All American. No further action was taken by or on behalf of All American until June 9, 2006, when a motion to vacate the default final judgment was filed. In the motion, All American alleged that its registered agent had been served with the complaint, the default, and the final judgment, but that its registered agent never forwarded these documents to the corporation. A hearing on the motion was held on August 24, 2006. Thereafter, the trial court granted the motion to set aside the default final judgment.
For a trial court to grant a motion to set aside a default final judgment, the moving party must show: (1) the failure to file a responsive pleading was the result of excusable neglect; (2) the moving party has a meritorious defense; and (3) the moving party acted with due diligence in seeking relief from the default. Cinkat Transp., Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 596 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
Hepburn argues that the four-month delay between the time All American found out about the default judgment and the time All American’s counsel actually filed a motion to vacate was not an exercise of due diligence and precludes the granting of the motion to vacate.
We agree. In a case strikingly similar to the instant case, the Third District recently held that a six-week delay in filing a motion to vacate a default after receiving notice constitutes a lack of due diligence as a matter of law. See Lazcar Int’l Inc. v. Rene Caraballo, 32 Fla.
L. Weekly D769, — So. 2d —, 2007 WL 837197 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar.21, 2007). Absent competent substantial evidence of some exceptional circumstances explaining the delay, a six-week delay in filing a motion to vacate a default judgment after receiving a notice constitutes a lack of due diligence as a matter of law. See id. at 5, at-.
In the instant ease, the only explanation given by All American’s counsel for the four-month delay in learning about the default final judgment and then filing the motion to vacate the final judgment was contained in a letter dated February 2, 2006, from attorney Sadaka to Hepburn’s counsel. The letter stated that attorney Petersen was on vacation until February 6 and that the firm would be moving to vacate the final judgment after default. In the record before us, there is an absence of competent substantial evidence of some exceptional circumstances explaining this four-month delay. We therefore reverse and remand with directions that the trial court reinstate the judgment.
Reversed and Remanded with Directions.
WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Chetu, Inc. v. Franklin First Fin., Ltd, 276 So. 3d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…1) its failure to file a responsive pleading was the result of excusable neglect, (2) it has a meritorious defense, and (3) it acted with due diligence in seeking relief upon learning of the final judgment. Id.; Hepburn v. All Am. Gen. Const. Corp., 954 So. 2d 1250, 1251-52 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). The court in this case abused its discretion in vacating the judgment because Franklin First did not show excusable neglect in failing to file a responsive pleading or due diligence in seeking relief. As for excusable…
-
Seay Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Locklin, 965 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…ue diligence in pursuing relief, and the assertion of a meritorious defense.” See Rice v. James, 740 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (emphasis added). We hold that Locklin failed to demonstrate due diligence. See Hepburn v. All Am. Gen. Constr. Corp., 954 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (holding that setting aside a default judgment was reversible error because a four-month delay between the time All American found out about the default judgment and the motion to vacate was not an exercise of due diligence that…
-
Lumenes Pierre v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., 318 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…responsive pleading was the result of excusable neglect; (2) the moving party has a meritorious defense; and (3) the moving party acted with due diligence in seeking relief from the default.” Id. at 5 (quoting Hepburn v. All Am. Gen. Constr. Corp., 954 So. 2d 1250, 1251–52 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)). Obviously, this statement of law cannot apply to a plaintiff seeking to avoid the dismissal of a case he filed; why would the plaintiff have to show that there is a meritorious defense to his own case? Although the c…
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
- Cash v. State, 596 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Cinkat Transp., Inc. v. Md. Cas. Co., 596 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)