CARROLL'S, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ANNE MARIE DEBARROS, A/K/A ANNE MARIE BROEMAN, APPELLEE
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.
Carroll's, Inc. appealed an order vacating a default judgment for goods sold. The court affirmed the vacation of the final judgment but reversed the trial court's allowance of defendant to plead to the merits, holding that the defendant's default for failure to plead should remain standing, and remanded for a hearing on damages.
The court affirmed the vacation of the final judgment as not constituting a gross abuse of discretion, but reversed the trial court's allowance of the defendant to plead to the merits. The default for failure to plead must stand, but the defendant is entitled to notice of application for final judgment and an opportunity to be heard on the amount of damages.
“Upon considering the record and the brief of appellant (no brief having been filed on behalf of the appellee) we affirm the order appealed from' in vacating the final judgment, no gross abuse of discretion of the trial court having been shown.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing vacation of judgments and affirms that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarroll's, Inc. filed suit against Anne Marie DeBarros on October 26, 1964, seeking $2,816.43 for goods sold. A default was entered on December 9, 196…
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 Notice Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks reversal of an order setting aside a final judgment in a law action.
On October 26, 1964, the appellant Carroll’s Inc., filed an action in the civil court of record in Dade County against the ap-pellee Anne Marie DeBarros for $2,816.43 for goods sold. On December 9, 1964, a default was entered by the clerk against the defendant for failure to respond. The following day plaintiff filed an affidavit of proof, and final judgment, which with interest and costs aggregated $2,971.33, was entered by the court. Twenty-one days after judgment the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and some months later, on March 24, 1965, the defendant filed a motion to vacate the default judgment. The grounds of the motion to vacate were (1) that the judgment was erroneous, (2) that it was predicated on “false affidavits” and (3) that defendant received no notice of the judgment except through subsequent proceedings in aid of execution. An affidavit filed by the defendant in support of the motion to vacate recited that defendant had been a customer of plaintiff for some years; denied defendant was indebted to plaintiff “in the sum of $2,816.43” in that certain items involved in the sale (valued between $600 and $700) had not been delivered. As stated above, the trial court vacated the final judgment and allowed the defendant a period of time within which to answer. The order vacating the judgment did not set aside the default which had been entered against the defendant earlier for failure to plead.
Upon considering the record and the brief of appellant (no brief having been filed on behalf of the appellee) we affirm the order appealed from' in vacating the final judgment, no gross abuse of discretion of the trial court having been shown. See North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, Fla. 1962, 143 So.2d 849. We hold, however, that the trial judge was in error in allowing the defendant to plead to the merits. The defendant’s motion to vacate showed no excuse for her delay and failure to plead to the complaint within the time allowed by law. With the final judgment vacated, and the default for failure to plead allowed to stand, the defendant would be entitled to notice of application for final judgment and to an opportunity to be present and be heard on the matter of the amount of damages. See Moore v. Boyd, Fla.1952, 62 So. 2d 427, 430, and Pan American World Airways v. Gregory, Fla.App.1957, 96 So. 2d 669, 672. Defendant’s affidavit in support of her motion to vacate did not deny or seek to avoid the sale transaction, but indicated intention to contend plaintiff was not entitled to the full amount of damages claimed.
For the reasons stated the order appealed from is affirmed in part and reversed in part and the cause is remanded for trial as to amount of damages recoverable.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Winky's, Inc. v. Ivy M. Francis, 229 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…d Airways, Inc. v. Gregory, Fla.App.1957, 96 So. 2d 669; Hurst v. Federal Screen Supply Co., Fla.App.1962, 142 So. 2d 151; Harbour Tower Develop. Corp. v. Seaboard Equip. Co., Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 405; Carroll’s, Inc. v. De Barros, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 49; Lawn v. Wasserman, Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 261. In Lawn v. Wasserman we quoted portions of Rule 1.440(c). Those portions are another way of stating the rule concerning the necessity of notifying a defaulting defendant of trial on the issue of unli…
-
Osceola Farms Co. v. Sanchez, 238 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)…ilure to give notice to a defaulting defendant as to trial date on the issue of unliquidated damages. Winky’s, Inc. v. Francis, Fla.App.1969, 229 So. 2d 903; Lawn v. Wasserman, Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 261; Carroll’s, Inc. v. DeBarros, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 49; Harbour Tower Development Corp. v. Seaboard Equipment Co., Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 405; Hurst v. Federal Screen Supply Co., Fla.App.1962, 142 So. 2d 151; Pan American World Airways v. Gregory, Fla.App.1957, 96 So. 2d 669. The record reveals that…
-
Arnold v. Stevenson, 244 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…e of unliquidated damages. Osceo [*550] la Farms Company v. Sanchez, Fla.App. 1970, 238 So. 2d 477. Winky’s, Inc. v. Francis, Fla.App. 1969, 229 So. 2d 903; Lawn v. Wasserma'n, Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 261; Carroll's, Inc. v. DeBarros, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 49; Harbour Tower Development Corp. v. Seaboard Equipment Co., Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 405; Hurst v. Federal Screen Supply Co., Fla.App.1962, 142 So. 2d 151; Pan American World Airways v. Gregory, Fla.App. 1957, 96 So. 2d 669. That part of the order…
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)