SUSAN MAOUNIS
v.
IGOR SHAMIS
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 did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to quash service and enforcing the liquidated damages provision.
[1] Under the Hague Convention, the return of a central authority's completed certificate of service constitutes prima facie evidence of service, and a defendant seeking to o…
[2] A liquidated damages clause in a contract may be enforced where the damages are not readily ascertainable at the time the contract is executed and the liquidated damages…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSusan Maounis and Igor Shamis were parties to a dispute involving service of process and a liquidated damages clause in a contract. The trial court de…
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 Motion To Vacate Default Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Bevilacqua v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 194 So. 3d 461, 463–65 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (stating that a denial of a motion to quash service is reviewed de novo and explaining that under the Hague Convention “the return of the central authority’s completed certificate of service is prima facie evidence of service by the central authority” and to overcome such evidence a defendant must show a “lack of actual notice of the proceedings or that the defendant was prejudiced in some way as a result of the alleged deficiency” (citations omitted)); see also Lloyd’s Underwriter’s At London v. Ruby, Inc., 801 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“An order denying a motion to vacate a default is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.”); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980) (“If reasonable [people] could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion.”); Gibson Tr., Inc. v. Office of the Att’y. Gen., 883 So. 2d 379, 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“To be relieved of a default, a party must show excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and due diligence.”); Hyman v. Cohen, 73 So. 2d 393, 401 (Fla. 1954) (instructing that a liquidated damages clause may be enforced where (1) the damages are not readily ascertainable at the time the contract is drawn and (2) the amount of liquidated damages is not “grossly disproportionate” to what might be expected to result from the
2 buyer’s breach); San Francisco Distrib. Ctr., LLC v. Stonemason Partners, LP, 183 So. 3d 391, 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (explaining that Florida courts addressing this issue have held that a forfeiture amount of 10% or less of the total purchase price is not unconscionable and upholding a forfeiture of $400K that amounted to 7.6% of the purchase price).
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (63 total)
-
Hutchison v. Tompkins, 259 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1972)…40 So. 2d 180, agreed with the trial judge and affirmed the dismissal. We disagree and reverse. We have taken jurisdiction in the cause in order to resolve a conflict between the District Court’s opinion and our previous decision in Hyman v. Cohen, 73 So. 2d 393 (Fla.1954). See Article V, Section 4(2), Florida Constitution, F.S.A. Count I of the complaint in question alleged that petitioners, as vendors, entered into a contract for the sale of land with respondents, as purchasers. The contract, which was a…
-
Lefemine v. Baron, 573 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 1991)…in advance to an amount to be paid or retained as liquidated damages in the event of a breach. Poinsettia Dairy Prods. v. Wessel Co., 123 Fla. 120, 166 So. 306 (1936); Southern Menhaden Co. v. How, 71 Fla. 128, 70 So. 1000 (1916). In Hyman v. Cohen, 73 So. 2d 393 (Fla.1954), this Court established the test as to when a liquidated damages provision will be upheld and not stricken as a penalty clause. First, the damages consequent upon a breach must not be readily ascertainable. Second, the sum stipulated to b…
-
Goldfarb v. Robertson, 82 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1955)…the lendor is not in default and is willing and able to perform, the purchaser cannot wrongfully refuse to complete the transaction and recover what be has paid toward the purchase money. * * * ” In a very recent case that of Hyman v. Cohen, Fla., 73 So. 2d 393, this court in an opinion by Justice Roberts held that circumstances, including .the- fact that damage which landlord might sustain because of premature termination of lease could not be readily ascertained; and the fact that deposit under lease was…
Previewing 3 of 63 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Gibson Tr., Inc. v. Allen, 883 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Renato Bevilacqua v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 194 So. 3d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- SAN Francisco Distrib. Ctr., LLC v. Stonemason P'rs, LP, 183 So. 3d 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)