WELSPRING INVESTMENTS S.A.
v.
SIMONE FRANGI
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.
Welspring Investments appealed a trial court order vacating a damages award against defaulting defendant Simone Frangi. The court affirmed, holding that Welspring's damages claim was unliquidated and therefore the defendant was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before damages could be assessed.
The court affirmed that damages sought by Welspring are unliquidated because they cannot be determined with exactness from the pleadings or by arithmetical calculation alone. Therefore, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(c), the defaulting defendant was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before damages could be assessed.
[1] In a default judgment action, unliquidated damages—those requiring evidence for determination of amount—cannot be awarded without notice to the defaulting party and an op…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 a default is entered, the defaulting party admits entitlement to liquidated damages, but not unliquidated damages.”
Statement of the governing rule regarding the effect of default on different categories of damages
Welspring Investments obtained a default judgment against Simone Frangi and sought damages for money lent. The trial court vacated the damages award, …
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 Unliquidated Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
LOGUE, J.
Welspring Investments, S.A., appeals from a portion of an omnibus order vacating a damages award entered against Simone Frangi following entry of a default. We affirm the trial court’s detailed, scholarly, and well-reasoned order concluding that the damages sought by Welspring are unliquidated, thus warranting notice and an opportunity to be heard pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(c).
“Where a default is entered, the defaulting party admits entitlement to liquidated damages, but not unliquidated damages. Damages are liquidated when the exact amount due may be determined from the pleadings. Where evidence must be presented to determine the amount, however, damages are unliquidated.” 1445 Wash. Ltd. P’ship v. Lemontang, 19 So. 3d 1079, 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (citing Cellular Warehouse, Inc. v. GH Cellular, LLC, 957 So. 2d 662, 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Bowman v. Kingsland Dev., Inc., 432 So. 2d 660, 662–63 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)). Where an action involves unliquidated damages, “‘a party against whom default has been entered is entitled to notice of an order setting the matter for trial, and must be afforded an opportunity to defend.’” Cellular Warehouse, 957 So. 2d at 666 (quoting Viets v. American Recruiters Enters., Inc., 922 So. 2d 1090, 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)). The damages sought by Welspring for its money lent claim against Frangi are unliquidated because they cannot be “determined with exactness from the cause of action as pleaded, i.e., from a pleaded agreement between the parties, by an arithmetical calculation or by application of definite rules of law.” Id. at 665 (quoting Bowman, 432 So. 2d at 662).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maiuri v. First Am. Title Ins. Co. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…from the cause of action as pleaded, i.e., from a pleaded agreement between the parties, by an arithmetical calculation or by application of definite rules of law.” Id. at 665 (quoting Bowman, 432 So. 2d at 662). Welspring Invs., S.A. v. Frangi, 327 So. 3d 444, 445 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (emphasis added). There’s no issue with the promissory note. The uncertainty comes from the fact that there’s a default final judgment entered against a co-promisor, a satisfaction of judgment without any indication of the…
Authorities Cited
- Flagship Nat'l Bank OF Miami v. Gray Distrib. Sys., Inc., 432 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Terrie G. Viets v. Am. Recruiters Enters., Inc., 922 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Cellular Warehouse, Inc. v. GH Cellular, LLC, 957 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- 1445 Wash. Ltd. P'ship v. Lemontang, 19 So. 3d 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)