WILLAIM C. GRIMSELY, JR., AND CHARLES FAIRCLOTH D/B/A MAJOR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA UNIVERSAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on the merits for a mortgage broker against real estate developers but reversed the trial court's decision to vacate a default judgment, ordering the default judgment reinstated.
The trial court erred in vacating the default judgment because the developers failed to show a meritorious defense or a legal excuse for their failure to respond.
A mortgage broker sued real estate developers for a commission and obtained a default judgment. The trial court later vacated this default judgment an…
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 Action For Broker'S Commission cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, real estate developers, appeal from a final judgment in favor of appellee, a mortgage broker. Appellee sued appellants seeking a brokerage commission in the sum of $12,440. Upon being served with process appellants failed to respond whereupon a default followed by a final judgment consequent thereon was entered in the sum of $12,440 plus costs in the sum of $31. Upon motion the default and judgment were vacated and the case was allowed to proceed on the merits, resulting in a judgment in favor of appellee in the sum of $8,000 plus costs. Appellants appealed and appellee cross-appealed.
The record, briefs and oral arguments of able counsel lead us to the conclusion that the points raised by appellants’ appeal are without merit. Appellee’s contention, however, urged by its cross-appeal, that the learned trial judge erred in vacating and setting aside the default and final judgment entered consequent thereon is meritorious.
Although the law favors resolution of cases on the merits, defaults properly entered and judgments thereon may not be set aside absent a showing of the existence of a meritorious defense and a legal excuse for failure to comply with the rules. (Metcalf v. Langston, Fla.App. 1st 1974, 296 So. 2d 81, cert. dism., Sup.Ct.Fla.1974, 302 So. 2d 414) The record of this case reveals no legal reason for appellants’ failure to respond nor does it reveal any legal basis for relieving appellants of the consequences of the default entered against them.
As to appellants’ appeal we affirm. As to appellee’s cross-appeal we reverse and direct that the final judgment entered consequent upon default in favor of appellee and against appellants be reinstated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BOYER, C. J. and McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perry v. Univ. Cabs, Inc., 344 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…Florida Inv. Enterprises, Inc. v. Kentucky Co., 160 So. 2d 733, 735 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Butler v. Butler, 172 So. 2d 899, 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Metcalf v. Langston, 296 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Grimsely v. Florida Universal Financial Gorp., 339 So. 2d 721, 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). In this case the motion filed by the defendant to set aside the default should have been denied, in the absence of a showing that the defendant had a meritorious defense. The order appealed from is reversed.…
-
Serpico v. Del Forn, 344 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Grimsley v. Florida Universal Financial Corporation, 339 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), and Perry v. University Cabs, Inc., 344 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).…
Authorities Cited
- Metcalf v. Langston, 296 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Metcalf v. Langston, 302 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1974)
- Mitrisin v. Hill, 302 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1974)