HERITAGE SUPPLY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
MORGAN A. GRAHAM, D/B/A GRAHAM TILE, LTD., 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.
Appellate court affirmed trial court's discretionary order vacating a default judgment, holding that absent abuse of discretion, courts should resolve doubts in favor of allowing trial on the merits.
A trial court's order vacating a default judgment and the judgment entered thereon is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and such orders are presumed correct on appeal unless the trial court clearly abused its discretion.
[1] A trial court's discretionary order vacating a default judgment is reviewed on appeal under a presumption of correctness, and reversal requires a showing of clear abuse o…
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“if there is any reasonable doubt, it should be resolved in favor of allowing a trial on the merits”
Principle governing vacation of defaults and judgments entered thereon, citing Metcalf v. Langston
Heritage Supply Company obtained a default judgment against Morgan Graham, but the trial court subsequently vacated both the default and the resulting…
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 Vacation Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Chief Judge.
By this interlocutory appeal appellant, who was plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of an order of the trial court setting aside a final judgment entered consequent upon default and setting aside the default. No useful purpose will be accomplished by meticulously reciting the uncontroverted facts giving rise to this appeal. Suffice to say that, generally speaking, the vacating of defaults and judgments entered thereon is in the sound, but not unfettered, discretion of the trial court subject to the oft announced principle that if there is any reasonable doubt, it should be resolved in favor of allowing a trial on the merits. (See Metcalf v. Langston, Fla.App. 1st., 1974, 296 So. 2d 81 and authorities therein cited). Although it is difficult to excuse the almost flagrant manner in which appellee’s attorney handled this case, we cannot say that as a matter of law the learned, experienced and able trial judge abused his discretion. Appellant’s reliance for reversal on Metcalf v. Langston, supra, is misplaced. While reaffirming the principles in that case reiterated, we again point out that there the trial court denied a motion to vacate; which action, under the circumstances of that case, we affirmed.
The rule that actions of a trial judge reach an appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness is also applicable to review of orders incident to vacating defaults and final judgments consequent thereon.
AFFIRMED.
McCORD & SMITH, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Salomon v. Mid-States Mortg. Corp., 356 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…Corporation, and also a summary final judgment entered in favor of Mid-States and against plaintiff. Review of the record discloses that the trial court did not err in setting aside the default against Mid-States. Heritage Supply Company v. Graham, 334 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Associated Medical Institutions, Inc., v. Imperatori, 338 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The trial court did, however, err in entering a summary final judgment for Mid-States since there are material issues of fact to be decided…
Authorities Cited
- Metcalf v. Langston, 296 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)