PROGRESSIVE WASTE SOLUTIONS OF FL
v.
BRITT
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.
A judgment is not void for lack of due process where the defendant received actual notice of the pending lawsuit and critical proceedings, and had an opportunity to be heard.
[1] A default judgment based upon a complaint that fails to state a cause of action is voidable, not void, when the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the par…
[2] A void judgment may be attacked at any time, while a voidable judgment must be challenged within a reasonable time, typically one year, through direct appeal or a motion…
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“It is well settled that where a court is legally organized and has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the adverse parties are given an opportunity to be heard, then errors, irregularities or wrongdoing in proceedings, short of illegal deprivation of opportunity to be heard, will not render the judgment void.”
Court's statement of controlling law from Curbelo v. Ullman
Progressive Waste Solutions appealed a non-final order from a Miami-Dade County circuit court judgment entered against it in a dispute with Tavares Br…
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 Opportunity To Be Heard cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed December 19, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D18-875 Lower Tribunal No. 15-16487
________________
Progressive Waste Solutions of FL., Inc.,
Appellant,
vs.
Tavares Britt,
Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Michael A. Hanzman, Judge. Baker & Hostetler LLP, and Robert W. Thielhelm, Jr., and Robert D. Sowell (Orlando), for appellant. Goldberg and Hirsh, P.A., and Jeffrey S. Hirsh; Akerman LLP, and Gerald B. Cope, Jr., Michael B. Chavies, Ilana Tabacinic, and Naim S. Surgeon; Payer & Associates, and James D. Payer, for appellee. Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ, and LOGUE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Given the actual notice Appellant received of the pending lawsuit and various critical proceedings therein, including the notice of trial, and the fact that there was no contact between Appellant and Appellee’s counsel regarding Appellant’s claim against Appellee, we find this case clearly distinguishable from M.W. v. SPCP Group V, LLC, 163 So. 3d 518, 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015), and affirm because the judgment was therefore not void under the authority of Bank of New York Mellon v. Condominium Association of La Mer Estates, Inc., 175 So. 3d 282, 285 (Fla. 2015) (quoting Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So. 2d 443, 445 (Fla. 1990) (“It is well settled that where a court is legally organized and has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the adverse parties are given an opportunity to be heard, then errors, irregularities or wrongdoing in proceedings, short of illegal deprivation of opportunity to be heard, will not render the judgment void.”)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Arnaldo Curbelo, M.D. v. Ullman, 571 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 1990)
- The Bank OF NEW York Mellon v. Condo. Ass'n OF LA MER Ests., Inc., 175 So. 3d 282 (Fla. 2015)
- M.W. v. SPCP Grp. V, LLC, 163 So. 3d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)