GIGI CRUZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE VINEYARDS OF PLANTATION, CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT 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.
Appellant Cruz challenges a final summary judgment foreclosing a condominium lien. The appellate court reversed because the trial court denied Cruz proper service of the notice of hearing, violating a prior court order requiring dual service by both email and physical mail, thereby denying her due process.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of the motion to vacate because the judgment was entered without proper notice and service as required by the prior court order. A judgment entered without proper notice denies due process, and neither a showing of excusable neglect nor a meritorious defense is required to vacate such a judgment.
[1] A judgment entered without proper notice to a party denies that party due process.
[2] A prior court order requiring service by both physical mail and email must be followed to ensure proper notice.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Appellee did not give the pro se appellant notice and an opportunity to be heard at the summary judgment hearing because it did not serve the notice of hearing by e-mail and physical mail as required by a prior court order.”
States the core violation—failure to comply with the court's service requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter Cruz's counsel withdrew, the trial court ordered that all papers be served on Cruz at both a physical mailing address and email address to accom…
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 Meritorious Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
The trial court denied appellant’s motion to vacate a final summary judgment that foreclosed a condominium lien. We exercise de novo review and reverse because appellant was denied proper service of the notice of the final hearing. Vercosa v. Fields, 174 So.3d 550, 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Appellee did not give the pro se appellant notice and an opportunity to be heard at the summary judgment hearing because it did not serve the notice of hearing by e-mail and physical mail as required by a prior court order.
A previous order granting appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw provided that all papers or other filings were to be served on appellant at a stated physical mailing address and an e-mail address. This dual service was to accommodate appellant’s work-related travel requirements. *899The trial court also stayed the case to allow appellant time to obtain new counsel.
Appellant did not retain new counsel and about a month after the stay expired, appellee served appellant with a notice of hearing on the motion for summary judgment by regular and certified mail. Appel-lee did not serve the notice by e-mail as required by the withdrawal order.
Appellant did not appear at the hearing and the trial court entered the final summary judgment. About a month later appellant moved to set the judgment aside, noting that she was not served by email, that she was out of town when the notice was mailed, and that she did not return until after the hearing. There was no dispute that the certified mailing was returned as undelivered.
Appellant argued that the final judgment was void for lack of service and/or that it was entered upon mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540. The trial court denied appellant’s motion, commenting that appellant failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or a meritorious defense. Neither is required because the judgment was entered without proper notice, thereby denying appellant due process. Hendrix v. Dep’t Stores Nat’l Bank, 177 So.3d 288, 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Here, appellee failed to comply with the court’s order that required all papers or other filings to be served on appellant at a stated physical mailing address and an e-mail address. Thus, we reverse the order denying the motion to vacate and remand for the trial court to vacate the final summary judgment.
Reversed and remanded.
Warner, May and Levine, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. for J.P. Morgan Mortg. Acquisition Tr. 2007-CH1 v. Stone, 174 So. 3d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Vercosa v. Fields, 174 So. 3d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Hendrix v. Dep't Stores Nat'l Bank, 177 So. 3d 288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)