AIM RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
QUINCY WILLIAMS, 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.
AIM Recovery Services appealed the vacation of a default judgment against Quincy Williams. The court affirmed the trial court's order vacating the default, holding that the default judgment was void because Williams did not receive notice of the application for default or an opportunity to be heard, violating due process.
The default and default final judgment were properly vacated because they were void. A judgment entered without notice to a party violates due process and is void ab initio. Because Williams established that he did not receive notice and was not provided an opportunity to be heard, the default judgment was void and properly vacated.
[1] A default and default final judgment are void and properly vacated when a party establishes that they did not receive notice of the application for default or the motion…
[2] A violation of the due process guarantee of notice and an opportunity to be heard renders a judgment void.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“a violation of the due' process guarantee of notice and an opportunity to be heard renders a judgment void”
Establishes the core constitutional principle that lack of notice and opportunity to be heard makes a judgment void
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was initially represented by counsel in the action but counsel subsequently withdrew, leaving Williams unrepresented. Williams filed a motion…
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 Gross Abuse Of Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, AIM Recovery Services, Inc., appeals a nonfinal order vacating a default and default final judgment. We review the trial court’s order for a gross abuse of discretion, Gables Club Marina, LLC v. Gables Condo. & Club Ass’n, Inc., 948 So.2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (citing N. Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So.2d 849, 852 (Fla. 1962)), and affirm.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(b) authorizes entry of a default by the court, but where the party has filed or served any document in the action,1 “that party must be served with notice of the application for default.” In the instant case, Williams alleged in his motion to vacate that the default and default final judgment were void as having been rendered without notice to him or an opportunity to be heard.2
At an evidentiary hearing on Williams’s motion to vacate, the trial court weighed the testimony, considered the other evidence presented, and concluded, inter alia, that Williams did not receive notice of the application for default or notice of the motion for default final judgment, and did not have an opportunity to be heard. These *1107determinations are supported by the record.
Because Williams established that he did not receive notice and was not provided an opportunity to be heard, the default and default final judgment were void and properly vacated. As we held in Cellular Warehouse, Inc. v. GH Cellular, LLC, 957 So.2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) “[a] violation of the due' process guarantee of notice and an opportunity to be heard renders a judgment void.” “Notice is the first and most essential element of due process and failure to give notice of a default, when required, makes a default void.” M.W. v. SPCP Group V, LLC, 163 So.3d 518, 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). “This court has repeatedly held that a judgment entered without notice to a party is void ab initio.” State, Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Prinzee v. Thurmond, 721 So.2d 827, 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (and cases cited).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pace v. Dixon (Fla. 1st DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- N. Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1962)
- Cellular Warehouse, Inc. v. GH Cellular, LLC, 957 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- State v. Thurmond, 721 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Gables Club Marina, LLC v. The Gables Condo. & Club Ass'n, Inc., 948 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- M.W. v. SPCP Grp. V, LLC, 163 So. 3d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)