STEPHEN GRUDENIC
v.
SUNDEEP SINGH
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 trial court's order denying the motion to vacate the default judgment is affirmed. The affidavit of diligent search was facially sufficient under Florida Statutes section 49.041, and Grudenic's failure to provide a transcript of the evidentiary hearing prevents appellate review of the trial court's factual findings regarding the adequacy of the diligent search.
[1] An order granting or denying a motion to vacate a default judgment is reviewed under the gross abuse of discretion standard.
[2] An affidavit of diligent search filed pursuant to Florida Statutes section 49.041 must be evaluated for both facial sufficiency and whether the plaintiff conducted an ade…
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“Where constructive service is attempted, the trial court must determine both whether the affidavit of diligent search filed by the plaintiff is legally sufficient, and whether the plaintiff conducted an adequate search to locate the defendant.”
This establishes the two-part test for evaluating constructive service by publication: facial sufficiency of the affidavit and adequacy of the actual search efforts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSundeep Singh obtained a default final judgment against Stephen Grudenic and served him by publication after filing an affidavit of diligent search. T…
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 Affidavit Of Diligent Search cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed August 13, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-2130 Lower Tribunal No. 23-18664-CA-01 ________________
Stephen Grudenic, Appellant,
vs.
Sundeep Singh, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Charles Kenneth Johnson, Judge.
Stephen Grudenic, in proper person.
Weiss Law Group, P.A., and Jason S. Weiss (Coral Springs), for appellee.
Before EMAS, LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ.
EMAS, J.
5 Significantly, Grudenic has failed to provide a transcript of that evidentiary hearing. Such failure is fatal to this appeal, as the absence of a transcript prevents this court from reviewing the trial court’s factual determinations and assessing whether there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s ultimate determination that Singh acted with reasonable diligence attempting to locate an address at which personal service could be effectuated upon Grudenic. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“The question raised by [appellant] clearly involves underlying issues of fact. When there are issues of fact the appellant necessarily asks the reviewing court to draw conclusions about the evidence. Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court cannot properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal.”); Umana v. Citizens Prop. Insur. Corp., 282 So. 3d 933, 934-35 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (holding: “The absence of a hearing
We affirm without additional discussion the trial court’s order denying this “Combined Motion for Sanctions,” which the trial court rendered following the evidentiary hearing at which both of Grudenic’s motions were scheduled to be heard.
6 transcript at which the trial court made this decision prevents any meaningful review of whether the trial court abused its discretion in this regard”) (citing Applegate, 377 So. 2d 1150); see also Scognamillo v. Jamison, 389 So. 3d 624, 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“In the absence of an adequate transcript on appeal, a judgment that is not fundamentally erroneous must be affirmed.”). Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Somma v. Metra Elecs. Corp., 727 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Clearwater Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Sampson, 336 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1976)
- Demars v. Vill. OF Sandalwood Lakes Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 625 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Rocky and Mary Giron v. Ugly Mortg., Inc., 935 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Miller v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr. & Fla. Parole Comm'n, 826 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Napoleon G. Bequer and Glenna G. Bequer v. Nat'l City Bank, 46 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Casen v. McDONOUGH, 962 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Coastal Cap. Venture, LLC v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., 153 So. 3d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Green Emerald Homes, LLC v. The Bank OF NEW York Mellon, 204 So. 3d 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Janiel Rodriguez v. Falcones, 314 So. 3d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)