LEONARD L. BURSTEN, APPELLANT,
v.
JACK F. COOPER, 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.
The court held that an order denying a motion to set aside a default and final judgment is not appealable, nor is it subject to interlocutory appeal.
Defendant sought to set aside a default and subsequent final judgment. The trial court denied the motions. Defendant appealed the order denying the mo…
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 Appealability Of Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal was from an order denying defendant’s motion to set aside a default and denying motion to set aside the final judgment entered upon ex parte proceedings subsequent to the default. There being no appeal from the final judgment, the order denying motion to set aside the default and default judgment was not reviewable upon an appeal. See Ramagli Realty v. Craver, Fla.1960, 121 So.2d 648. In addition, the order appealed does not come within the class of orders which may be the subject of an interlocutory appeal in a common law action.1
We have, nevertheless, considered the merits of defendant’s contention that the trial judge abused his discretion under which defaults may be set aside in proper cases.2 Upon authority of section 59.45, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., we have considered the notice of appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, because the notice was promptly filed and no reasonable objection appears to the consideration. Inasmuch as no abuse of discretion has been made to appear, the petition is denied.
It is so ordered.
PEARSON, Acting C. J., CARROLL, CHAS., J., and MILLEDGE, STANLEY, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bland v. Mitchell, 245 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1970)…ct the finality of the final judgment or suspend its operation.7 The decision of the district court is approved. ERVIN, C. J., ROBERTS and CARLTON, JJ., and MURPHREE, Circuit Judge, concur. . Bland v. Mitchell, 231 So. 2d 224 (Fla.App., 1970). . 127 So. 2d 134 (Fla.App., 1961). . 127 So. 2d 134 (Fla.App., 1961). . 223 So. 2d 365 (Fla.App., 1969). . 235 So. 2d 537 (Fla.App., 1970). .See also Odum v. Morningstar, 158 So. 2d 776 (Fla.App., 1953). The portion of Odum distinguishing appealability of the de…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Ramagli Realty Co. v. Craver, 121 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1960)
- Edwards v. Knight, 104 Fla. 16 (Fla. 1932)
- Adams v. Wolf, 104 Fla. 142 (Fla. 1932)
- Segall Inv. Co., Inc. v. Rosedale Delicatessen, Inc., 106 Fla. 578 (Fla. 1932)
- Biscayne Tr. Co. v. O'Farrell, 106 Fla. 864 (Fla. 1932)