NCR CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CANNON & WOLFE LUMBER CO., 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in denying a motion to vacate a default judgment because the appellant was not given notice of the application for default as required by rule.
Appellant appealed orders denying a motion to vacate a default judgment and compelling arbitration. The default judgment was entered after appellant f…
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 Vacating Default Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from a nonfinal order denying appellant’s motion to vacate default judgment (Case No. BO-29) and from nonfinal orders compelling arbitration and adjudicating liability (Case No. BO-429).
We reverse the trial court’s order denying the motion to vacate default judgment on the basis that appellant was not afforded notice of appellee’s application for default, as required by Rule 1.500(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The rule provides that if a party serves or files “any paper” in the action, he shall be served with notice of the application for default. We find that appellant served a “paper” 1 in the proceedings below and was thereby entitled to notice. See Reicheinbach v. Southeast Bank, N.A., 462 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
Additionally, we vacate the trial court’s order adjudicating liability in favor of the appellee, as it was premised solely on the erroneously entered default. We find no error in the trial court’s order compelling arbitration.
Accordingly, this cause is reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
BOOTH, C.J., and MILLS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . The "paper” filed in this case was a letter drafted and signed by a paralegal employed by appellant’s counsel. The letter acknowledged a telephone conversation with appellee’s counsel in which appellant was granted an additional 20 days to respond to the third-party complaint.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
EGF Tampa Assocs. v. Bohlen, 532 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…) (an attorney’s letter which stated that the attorney has not yet been retained was treated as a paper under rule 1.500(b) requiring plaintiff to give notice to the defendants of the application for default); NCR Corp. v. Cannon & Wolfe Lumber Co., 501 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (a letter drafted, signed, and mailed by a paralegal of a law firm deemed a “paper” under rule 1.500 necessitating notice before an entry of default). There has long existed in Florida a policy of liberality in the opening and v…
-
Ziff v. Stuber, 596 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…(Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Similarly, a letter acknowledging a telephone conversation wherein appellee allowed appellant an additional two days to respond to a third party complaint was deemed to be a “paper.” NCR Corp. v. Cannon & Wolfe Lumber Co., Inc., 501 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The filing of a nonresponsive “paper” filed as a delaying tactic, such as a notice of appearance, is an abuse of process supporting a default entered by the court under subsection (b) of the rule without notice of hearing. Picc…
-
M.W. v. SPCP Grp. V, LLC, 163 So. 3d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…illiams, 799 So. 2d 378, 379-80 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Ziff v. Stuber, 596 So. 2d 754, 755 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Gulf Maint. & Supply, Inc. v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 543 So. 2d 813, 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); NCR Corp. v. Cannon & Wolfe Lumber Co., 501 So. 2d 157, 158 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); EGF Tampa Assocs. v. Edgar V. Bohlen, G.F.G.M. A.G., 532 So. 2d 1318, 1320-21 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Terino Bros. v. Airey, 364 So. 2d 768, 768-79 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). In those cases, it was self-evident from the communica…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Reicheinbach v. Se. Bank, N.A., 462 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)