WILLIAM P. PLANES, APPELLANT,
v.
HONEYWELL INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., 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.
Appellant Planes challenges a summary judgment against him, claiming he never received the motions and court orders supporting the judgment because they were not served at the address designated by the trial court. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court erred in granting summary judgment when service was defective.
The trial court erred in refusing to set aside the judgment when appellant did not receive the motions and orders because they were not served at the court-designated address. The judgment must be vacated and appellant must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to answer the interrogatories and continue with the case.
[1] A court order directing that future pleadings be served upon a party at a specific business address requires strict compliance with that directive.
[2] A trial court errs in refusing to set aside a judgment when the record reflects that the party against whom the judgment was entered did not receive pleadings and orders…
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“It appears conceded in the record that the pleadings and orders filed between October 30, 1974 and December 19, 1974, had not been sent to appellant at the address designated in the court's order of August 22, 1974, and appellant states in his motion to vacate that he received none of them.”
Establishes that service was defective and appellant never received notice of the summary judgment motion or supporting orders
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court appointed new counsel for appellant and directed all future pleadings be served at his business address in Miami. Between October 30, …
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 Summary Judgment Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellee filed its amended complaint against appellant seeking to recover approximately $18,333 plus interest. Issue was joined by appellant’s answer and appellee’s reply.
On August 22, 1974, an order was entered allowing appellant’s counsel to withdraw. The order directed that future pleadings be served upon appellant “at his business address, Suite 1800, One Biscayne Tower, Miami, Florida.” Thereafter, between October 30, 1974, and January 17, 1975, appellee filed a motion for summary judgment, interrogatories to appellant, and a motion to compel; and the court entered an order setting the cause for trial and an order granting the motion to compel, (which order directed appellant to answer the interrogatories within three days).
In February 1975, the court entered (1) an order granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment, and (2) final judgment for appellee. Also in February appellant filed motions to: (1) set aside order granting the motion for summary judgment, and (2) vacate the final judgment for appellee.
On April 21, 1975, appellant filed a motion to strike and vacate appellee’s motions, the court’s orders, and the final judgment, alleging that he received none of those motions or orders until January 22, 1975, at which time he received the order granting the motion to compel answers to interrogatories.
It appears conceded in the record that the pleadings and orders filed between October 30, 1974 and December 19, 1974, had not been sent to appellant at the address designated in the court’s order of August 22, 1974, and appellant states in his motion to vacate that he received none of them. Thus, under the circumstances reflected by the record the trial court erred in refusing to set aside the judgment and allow appellant to answer the interrogatories.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to vacate the judgment and allow appellant a reasonable time to an swer appellee’s interrogatories and for further proceedings thereafter. REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
WALDEN, C. J., and MORROW, RUSSELL O., Associate Judge, concur.