GAC CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
D. ELOISE BEACH, 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.
GAC Corporation appeals an order denying its motion to set aside a default judgment entered against it in a negligence action. The court reversed, finding that the complaint contained no allegations that could form a legal basis for judgment against the appellant.
The trial court erred in denying the motion to set aside the default judgment. A default judgment must be supported by allegations in the complaint that state a cause of action against the defendant; where the complaint is completely devoid of any allegations that could form a legal basis for judgment against a defendant, the default judgment against that defendant should be set aside.
[1] A default judgment admits the truth of definite and certain allegations and fair inferences from the allegations of a complaint, but not conclusions of law or facts not w…
[2] A default judgment entitles a plaintiff to relief for which a proper predicate has been laid in the complaint.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A judgment by default properly entered against parties sui juris operates as an admission by the defendants of the truth of the definite and certain allegations and the fair inferences and conclusions of fact to be drawn from the allegations of the declaration. Conclusions of law, and facts not well pleaded, and forced inferences are not admitted by a default judgment.”
Establishes the legal standard for what a default judgment admits as true and the limitations on that admission.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceD. Eloise Beach filed a complaint against GAC Corporation, Jack Thomas Roland, Pat Griffin, and Dorothy Marie Larkin for damages exceeding $2,500 aris…
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 Well-Pleaded Allegations cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Judge.
Appellant appeals an order denying its motion to set aside a default judgment. Appellee filed a complaint against appellant and others reading as follows:
Plaintiff, D. ELOISE BEACH, by and through the undersigned Attorney, sues GAC CORPORATION, JACK THOMAS ROLAND, PAT GRIFFIN, and DOROTHY MARIE LARKIN, and alleges:
1. This is an action for damages which exceed $2,500.00.
2. That on or about 26 July 1969 at approximately 1:00 P.M., Plaintiff was a' business invitee in an automobile owned and operated by Defendant, JACK THOMAS ROLAND, who was at all relevant times an employee, acting within the scope of his employment of de-fendañt GAC CORPORATION.
3. That on the above stated day and the above mentioned time on SR S-858 3.5 miles north of SR-84, defendant DOROTHY MARIE LARKIN, did negligently operate the motor vehicle she was driving and caused it to collide with the automobile in which Plaintiff was riding.
4. As a result of defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff has suffered severe limitation of the right shoulder and pain in the entire right arm.
5. Plaintiff has sustained medical expenses, loss of wages, and pain and suffering in an amount in excess of $2,500.-00.
6. Plaintiff has had to employ legal counsel, the undersigned, for the purpose of obtaining compensation for the injuries sustained by her due to defendant’s negligence.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for damages against defendants.
There is no dispute as to the service of process nor that appellant waited some eleven months after the default judgment was entered to file its motion to set aside said default judgment. Appellant contends that there is no allegation contained in the complaint which could form a legal basis for a judgment against it and, therefore, the trial court erred in not setting aside the default judgment entered against it.
In North American Accident Ins. Co. v. Moreland, 1910, 60 Fla. 153, 53 So. 635, our Supreme Court held at page 637:
A judgment by default properly entered against parties sui juris operates as an admission by the defendants of the truth of the definite and certain allegations and the fair inferences and conclusions of fact to be drawn from the allegations of the declaration. Conclusions of law, and facts not well pleaded, and forced inferences are not admitted by a default judgment. If the allegations and the fair inferences from the allegations state a cause of action in favor of the plaintiffs, the allegations as to the right of action are taken to be true. Whether the admitted allegations state a cause of action is for the court to determine. Russ v. Gilbert, 19 Fla. 54; Watson v. Seat, 8 Fla. 446 ; 6 Ency.Pl. & Pr. 117. See also, Lybass v. Town of Ft. Myers, 56 Fla. 817, 47 So. 346; Hale v. Yeager, 57 Fla. 442, 49 So. 544.
A judgment by default entitles the plaintiff to the relief for which a proper predicate has been laid in the declaration. See Ocala v. Anderson, 58 Fla. 415, 50 So. 572. If the allegations of the declaration do not form a legal basis for the judgment recovered, it will be reversed on appeal. See 6 Ency.Pl. & Pr. 118.
We agree with appellant that the complaint filed by appellee is completely devoid of any allegations that could possibly form a legal basis for the entry of a judgment against it.
For the foregoing reasons the order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded.
McNULTY, C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Abrams v. Paul, 453 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…their contention that the default judgment must be reversed if founded upon a complaint insufficient to form a legal basis for the judgment. North American Accident Insurance Co. v. Moreland, 60 Fla. 153, 53 So. 635, 637 (1910); GAC Corp. v. Beach, 308 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Beach, quoting from North American Accident Insurance Co., stated the applicable rule in 308 So. 2d at 551-52: A judgment by default properly entered against parties sui juris .operates as an admission by the defendants of the t…1 / 2
-
Becerra v. Equity Imports, Inc., 551 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…here the complaint on its face fails to state a cause of action. Sunshine Sec. & Detective Agency v. Wells Fargo Armored Servs. Corp., 496 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Brumby v. Clearwater, 108 Fla. 633, 149 So. 203 (Fla.1933); GAC Corp. v. Beach, 308 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Because the defect is apparent from the face of the complaint this court is not precluded from ordering relief from the judgment. Fernandez-Aguirre v. Gall, 484 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. Gordy…
-
Sunshine Sec. & Detective Agency v. Wells Fargo Armored Servs. Corp., 496 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…id defendant. See North American Accident Insurance Co. v. Moreland, 60 Fla. 153, 53 So. 635 (1910); Fernandez-Aguirre v. Gall, 484 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Bay Products Corp. v. Winters, 341 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); GAC Corp. v. Beach, 308 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Second, the operative complaint herein alleges that an employee of the defendant Sunshine, while on the job, conspired with certain third parties to rob employees of the plaintiff Wells Fargo who were making a cash pick-up at t…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Russ v. John B. Gilbert et ux., 19 Fla. 54 (Fla. 1882)
- Lybass v. The Town of Fort Myers, 56 Fla. 817 (Fla. 1908)
- Watson v. Seat & Crawford, 8 Fla. 446 (Fla. 1859)
- City of Ocala v. Anderson, 58 Fla. 415 (Fla. 1909)
- The N. Am. Accident Ins. Co. v. Moreland, 60 Fla. 153 (Fla. 1910)
- Hale v. Yeager, 57 Fla. 442 (Fla. 1909)