A. PAUL JENSEN AND KEITH D. JENSEN, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM J. HOOFE AND WILLIAM J. HOOFE, III, AND CLARA M. JENSEN, KEITH D. JENSEN AND ANDREW PAUL JENSEN, AS CO-EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF A. P. JENSEN, DECEASED, APPELLEES
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.
In this breach of contract case involving corporate stock, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court judgment and remanded for a new trial on damages, holding that despite a valid default judgment, the defendants were entitled to present evidence on the issue of stock valuation and participate in the damages trial.
The refusal to vacate the default was not error and did not constitute gross abuse of discretion. However, the trial court erred in accepting book value as conclusive proof of market value and in excluding counter-defendants from presenting evidence and participating in the damages trial. Market value evidence beyond book value is relevant and admissible, and defaulted parties retain the right to be heard on damages.
“Following entry of the default a trial was had on issues relating to damages, in which the market value of the stock was a material factor. The trial court accepted as conclusively establishing such value the net worth of the corporation as disclosed by a balance sheet.”
Describes the trial court's erroneous reliance on book value alone to establish market value of stock.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCounter-defendants failed to file a timely reply to a counterclaim for breach of contract regarding the sale of corporate stock. After the 10-day dead…
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
This is an appeal from an adverse judgment on a counterclaim, by the plaintiffs below as counter-defendants. The counterclaim sought damages for a breach of contract for sale of certain corporate stock. The contentions raised on the appeal are that the trial court erred in refusing to vacate a default entered against the counter-defendants, and committed certain errors in the course of the trial on damages.
In pleading to the counterclaim the counter-defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Their motion was denied and they were ordered to file their reply to the counterclaim within 10 days. No reply was filed within the time allowed. Several days after the 10-day period elapsed, the counter-defendants filed a motion to strike the counterclaim. Thereupon the counter-plaintiffs moved for and were granted a default. The counter-defendants moved to set aside the default. Denial of that motion is assigned as error. That ruling of the trial court was not error. No gross abuse of discretion was shown. See North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, Fla. 1962, 143 So.2d 849.
The other contention of the appellants is well founded and is such as to require reversal and a new trial on damages. Following entry of the default a trial was had on issues relating to damages, in which the market value of the stock was a material factor. The trial court accepted as conclusively establishing such value the net worth of the corporation as disclosed by a balance sheet. The trial court also ruled that the counter-defendants were not entitled to offer evidence of value of the stock or be heard on the damage issue. Those rulings of the trial court were in error, and appellees in their brief conceded that evidence of value other than book value was relevant and admissible to show the market value, and also conceded that the counter-defendants were entitled to participate in the trial of the issues on damages notwithstanding the default. See Watson v. Seat and Crawford, 8 Fla. 446; Moore v. Boyd, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 427; Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Gregory, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 669; Kurkjian v. Fish Carburetor Corp., Fla. App.1962, 145 So.2d 523.
Accordingly the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial on the counterclaim on damages.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jensen v. Hoofe, 159 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1963)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 155 So. 2d 847.…
-
Bess v. Davis, 171 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…CURIAM. The motion of the appellant to strike designated portions of the brief of appel-lees is granted. Finding no abuse of discretion, the judgment is affirmed. See Wertman v. Tipping, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 666; Jensen v. Hoofe, Fla.App. 1963, 155 So. 2d 847; North Shore Hospital v. Barber, Fla.1962, 143 So. 2d 849; and Bittner v. Walsh, Fla.App.1961, 132 So. 2d 799. SMITH, C. J., and' SHANNON and WHITE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- N. Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1962)
- PAN Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Gregory, 96 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Moore v. Boyd, 62 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1952)
- Kurkjian v. Fish Carburetor Corp., 145 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Watson v. Seat & Crawford, 8 Fla. 446 (Fla. 1859)