GENERAL COMPUTER SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
AP SC RIVER OAKS LLC, ETC., APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2013-12-26
Nos. 3D12-1186, 3D11-2355
Before WELLS, ROTHENBERG and EMAS, JJ.
130 So. 3d 722 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2013) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Topics
Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.540 Actual Notice Due Diligence Excusable Neglect

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.540 cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
EMAS, J.

EMAS, J.

Appellant General Computer Services, Inc. (“GCS”) appeals the trial court’s orders denying its motion to vacate a default and default final judgment, as well as an order denying GCS’s successive motion for relief from the final judgment and from a post-default order.

We conclude that upon the record in this case, and contrary to the arguments made by GCS, the default entered by the clerk was not void, see Crocker Invs., Inc. v. Statesman Life Ins. Co., 515 So.2d 1305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), and in fact GCS received actual notice of the motion for default two weeks prior to entry of the default. We further conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that GCS failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or due diligence and in seeking relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, and that principles of res judicata bar successive motions for relief from judgment where the grounds for relief “were repetitive of those asserted in the first motion, or which with due diligence could have been asserted in the first motion.” See Veloso v. Trustcorp Capital Leasing, 791 So.2d 1138, 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (citing Perkins v. Salem, 249 So.2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)).

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Twylah Adams v. Est. OF Thomas Dean Henderson, Sr., 155 So. 3d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
    …he [trial] court’s denial of the initial motion for relief [from judgment] was therefore res judicata as to all grounds assigned as a basis for relief in the second and successive motion.” See also Gen. Computer Servs., Inc. v. AP SC River Oaks LLC, 130 So. 3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (explaining that res judicata bars successive motions for relief from judgment where grounds for relief were similarly asserted in the first motion). Res judicata applies where there is a subsequent action. See Fla. Dep't of Tran…
  • A.P.B. v. T.C.-M., 315 So. 3d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
    …dgment on the merits so as to correct errors of law as the trial court may do on a motion for rehearing.” (quoting Herskowitz v. Herskowitz, 513 So. 2d 1318, 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)) (citations omitted)); Gen. Comput. Servs. v. AP SC River Oaks LLC, 130 So. 3d 722, 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“[P]rinciples of res judicata bar successive motions for relief from judgment where the grounds for relief ‘were repetitive of those asserted in the first motion, or which with due diligence could have been asserted in the f…
  • Kambiz Zadeh v. Aegis Sec. Ins. Co. (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw