CHARLES BIRD, APPELLANT,
v.
INTERNATIONAL GRAPHICS, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed default judgment and garnishment against defendant where amended complaint was properly served and no notice of final judgment was required for a liquidated claim.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion by taking a motion under advisement for less than sixty days without exceptional circumstances, and no notice of application for final judgment on default is required when the amount involved is liquidated.
[1] When the amount involved in a default judgment is liquidated, no notice of application for final judgment on the default is required to be given to the defendant.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“No abuse of discretion was shown in the trial judge taking the matter under advisement for a period of less than sixty days, without exceptional circumstances.”
Court's analysis of whether trial judge erred in taking motions under advisement
After an earlier appeal, Bird filed an amended complaint against International Graphics, Inc., which was properly served. The defendant failed to file…
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 Post-Judgment Garnishment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Subsequent to this court’s opinion in Bird v. International Graphics, Inc., 362 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), an amended complaint was filed. Service of process was ultimately had upon the defendant. Thereafter, pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.190, the complaint was amended prior to any responsive pleading being filed thereto and said complaint, as amended, was validly served upon the defendant and his counsel. Subsequently, a default judgment was entered against the defendant for failure to reply. A final judgment was entered against the defendant and a post-judgment garnishment was entered against the same fund involved in the prior litigation. These appeals ensued.
The appellant contends the trial court erred in taking certain motions under advisement and in entering the final judgment on the default without notice.
We affirm. No abuse of discretion was shown in the trial judge taking the matter under advisement for a period of less than sixty days, without exceptional circumstances. Nothing in this record indicates any such situation. See: Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.020(f). Secondly, the amount involved being liquidated, there was no necessity of the defendant receiving notice of the application for final judgment on the default. Moore v. Boyd, 62 So. 2d 427 (Fla.1952); Stevenson v. Arnold, 250 So. 2d 270 (Fla.1971). Therefore, for the above and foregoing reasons, the final judgment here under review and the post-judgment writ of garnishment be and the same are hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mathews Corp. v. Green's Pool Serv., 584 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…oresaid clerk’s default on this liquidated damages claim. Moore v. Boyd, 62 So. 2d 427, 429-30 (Fla.1952); Peters Machinery Corp. v. Blairsville Mach. Prods. Co., 413 So. 2d 802, 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); see also Bird v. International Graphics, Inc., 374 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.500(e). We have not overlooked the other points raised on the defendant’s motion for rehearing, but find no merit therein. The defendant’s motion for rehearing is, therefore, in all respects, Denied.…
-
Peters Mach. Corp. v. Blairsville Mach. Prods. Co., Inc., 413 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…itorious defense required by Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540. GACL, Inc. v. Zeger, 276 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1973). The claim was liquidated and judgment entered on plaintiff’s theory of money had and received was proper. Bird v. International Graphics, Inc., 374 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979). The second issue presented, regarding attorney’s fees, has merit and we reverse that portion of the judgment. Peters was entitled to notice of the unliquidated claim of attorney’s fees and was entitled to contest the propriety…
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. Boyd, 62 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1952)
- Stevenson v. Arnold, 250 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 1971)
- Bird v. Int'l Graphics, Inc., 362 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)