ARTHUR J. MORRISON
v.
Z ROOFING & WATERPROOFING, INC.
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.
Florida appellate court reversed a default judgment against Morrison because the trial court lacked authority to enter default when Morrison had filed multiple responsive pleadings on the record that were never struck or found insufficient.
A trial court lacks authority to enter a default judgment when the defendant has filed responsive pleadings on the record unless the court first strikes those pleadings or finds them insufficient.
[1] A trial court lacks authority to enter a default judgment when responsive pleadings remain on the record unless the court has first struck those pleadings or found them i…
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“[W]ith no default entered, an answer on the record, and no order striking the answer, the trial court was without authority to enter a default and certainly had no basis to enter a default final judgment.”
Court cited Azure-Moore Invests. LLC v. Hoyen to establish the rule that responsive pleadings on record prevent default entry without striking.
Morrison filed four responsive pleadings prior to entry of default judgment. Z Roofing argued these pleadings were insufficient, but the trial court n…
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 Responsive Pleading cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Arthur J. Morrison (“Morrison”) appeals a nonfinal order denying his motion to vacate default judgment against Z Roofing & Waterproofing, Inc. (“Z Roofing”). We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5). On appeal Morrison argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to vacate the default final judgment because he filed multiple responsive pleadings prior to entry of default. We agree and reverse.
Here, Morrison filed four responsive pleadings prior to the entry of default judgment. Z Roofing argues these pleadings did not qualify as responsive pleadings because they were insufficient. The trial court however, never made such a finding nor did it strike Morrison’s pleadings on this ground. Under Florida law, the trial court could not have entered default without striking or otherwise finding Morrison’s pleadings insufficient. See Azure-Moore Invests. LLC v. Hoyen, 300 So. 3d 1268, 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (“[W]ith no default entered, an answer on the record, and no order striking the answer, the trial court was without authority to enter a default and certainly had no basis to enter a default final judgment.”); Singh v. Kumar, 234 So. 3d 1, 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (reversing and remanding where the trial court failed to strike or otherwise find the defendant’s responsive letters insufficient); Carraway v. Common, 677 So. 2d 51, 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) 2 (reversing and remanding entry of default judgment where “[n]o attempt was made to strike [defendant’s] answer for noncompliance with a court order”). Reversed and remanded.
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Archana Singh and Dennis Massey v. Dev T. Kumar, 234 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
- Azure-Moore v. Hoyen, 300 So. 3d 1268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
- Carraway v. Common, 677 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)