NELLIE GOOD SOMERVILLE, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN SKIDMORE, D/B/A SOUTH DIXIE SERVICE AND RUBEN PRATS, 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.
Nellie Somerville, a defendant who suffered a default judgment after failing to timely respond to a complaint, appeals her conviction for vehicle damage to a service station. The court affirms the judgment, holding that the trial court properly denied relief from the default and that sufficient evidence supported the judgment against her.
The trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying relief from the default because financial inability to hire an attorney, without demonstrating an attempt to seek alternative assistance such as Legal Aid, does not constitute legal excuse for failure to timely plead and does not establish a meritorious defense. The striking of the cross claim was proper as a consequence of the valid default. Sufficient evidence supported the judgment.
“The general rule is that relief from a default judgment may be granted within the sound discretion of the trial court upon showing of existence of a meritorious defense and legal excuse for failure to comply with rule, but default judgments may not be set aside for party guilty of gross negligence.”
Establishes the legal standard for relief from default judgments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant's automobile collided with a co-defendant's vehicle, causing damage to plaintiff's service station. Defendant was served with the complaint …
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 Meritorious Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, defendant below, seeks review of a final judgment of the Civil Court *576of Record following a verdict rendered in a non-jury trial. The appellee has not filed .a brief. The parties will be referred to as in the trial court.
The defendant’s automobile ran into plaintiff’s service station as the result of a collision with a co-defendant. The plaintiff filed an action to recover for the damages to his service station.
A default and final judgment were entered against defendant. The trial court, on its own motion, subsequently set aside this final judgment on the ground that the proof was not in conformity with the pleadings, but found the default was duly and properly entered. Plaintiff subsequently moved to amend the complaint and defendant moved to vacate the default and for permission to file defensive pleadings.
The court granted plaintiff’s petition to amend the complaint as to damages and denied the defendant’s motion to set aside the default.
The defendant then filed a cross claim against the co-defendant, which was struck by the court on the co-defendant’s motion.
In a non-jury trial at which counsel for defendant appeared and participated, the court found for the plaintiff against appellant-defendant, ordering her to pay the sum of $396.00, together with lawful costs of $28.00, and found the co-defendant not guilty. The defendant in her appeal assigns as error the following:
1. That the court erred in denying motion to set aside the default and allow her to file defensive pleadings..
2. That the court erred in granting co-defendant’s motion to strike cross claim.
3. That the court erred in admitting into evidence unsupported verbal statements of plaintiff concerning damages.
4. That the court erred in entering final judgment for plaintiff, as there was no valid evidence before court that the car that caused the damage was owned or operated by defendant.
The general rule is that relief from a default judgment may be granted within the sound discretion of the trial court upon showing of existence of a meritorious defense and legal excuse for failure to comply with rule, but default judgments may not be set aside for party guilty of gross negligence. Florida Investment Enterprises, Inc. v. Kentucky Co., Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 733.
The affidavit of the defendant admits service of the complaint and summons upon her, but says she was without funds at that time to employ an attorney to represent her and that her time to plead expired before she was able to find an attorney to represent her without any assurance of subsequent payment for his services.
There is no allegation of any attempt made to contact other lawyers or the Legal Aid Society for help. The Legal Aid Society is maintained by the Dade County Bar Association for the specific purpose of rendering legal aid to indigent persons.
We sympathize with the plight of defendant, but cannot agree that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside the default on the alleged grounds. To do so would permit the setting aside of a default against any person who alleged that he was financially unable to employ a lawyer prior to the entry of the default.
The court having properly refused to set aside the default was correct in striking defendant’s alleged cross claim against the co-defendant.
The other errors attack the sufficiency of the evidence resulting in the judgment. We have carefully reviewed the record before us and find that there is sufficient evidence to support the judgment of the trial court.
For the reasons stated, the judgment is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Winter Park Arms, Inc. v. Akerman, 199 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)…l court upon a showing of the existence of a meritorious defense and a legal excuse for failure to comply with the rules. Florida Investment Enterprises, Inc. v. Kentucky Co., Fla.App.1964, 160 So. 2d 733, 735; Somerville v. Skidmore, Fla.App. 1965, 175 So. 2d 575. The absence of either of these elements, however, will defeat his attempt to set aside a default. Chaney v. Headley, Fla. 1956, 90 So. 2d 297, 299. The trial judge found in his order denying the relief prayed for that defendant had failed to show…
-
Hubert Fischer & Angeles de Fischer v. Barnett Bank OF S. Fla., N.A., 511 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…filed against them, in their absence, relating to the pending controversy in Miami. Their failure to do so was grossly negligent and inexcusable. Winter Park Arms, Inc. v. Akerman, 199 So. 2d 107, 108-09 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); Somerville v. Skidmore, 175 So. 2d 575, 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); see Florida Investment Enters, v. Kentucky Co., 160 So. 2d 733, 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964). Second, the defendants have failed to establish, as required by Florida law, that they acted with due diligence in seeking to set asi…
-
Austin Burke, Inc. v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 179 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…ourt to set aside the final judgment pursuant to Rule 1.38 constituted a gross abuse of discretion. In the light of the facts recited above, we are unable to hold that the trial judge abused his discretion. Cf., Somerville v. Skidmore, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 575, and Teply v. Key, Fla.App.1963, 158 So. 2d 549. Appellant relies upon North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, Fla.1962, 143 So. 2d 849; however, that case was expressly limited to-the setting aside of an interlocutory order of default. In Florida I…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Inv. Enters., Inc. v. The Ky. Co., Inc., 160 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)