Excusable Neglect

1,860 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 85 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Herrick v. Se. Bank, N.A.
  512 So. 2d 1029· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-09-01 ·cited 30×
  Mortgagors appealed a default foreclosure judgment, arguing that their retained attorney's unexplained failure to respond to the mortgagee's motions constituted excusable neglect and that the mortgagee's affidavits overstated the amount due. The court held that an attorney's unex
• HAL Commodity Cycles Mgmt. Co. v. Riva Kirsh
  825 F.2d 1136· 7th Cir.· 1987-07-29 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the default judgment, as the defendant's default was willful and less drastic sanctions were not an absolute prerequisite.
• Luella Murray v. Ford Motor Co.
  770 F.2d 461· 5th Cir.· 1985-09-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a state court default judgment, entered before removal but set aside by the state court after removal was perfected (though before notice reached the state court), could be treated as a timely motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) in federal court, even if the st
• Pena v. Seguros la Comercial, S.A.
  770 F.2d 811· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-04 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a defendant's failure to provide a correct address to the state insurance department, leading to a default judgment, constitutes culpable conduct that prevents vacating the judgment under Rule 60(b).
• United States for the Use & Benefit of Tyrone E. Deloss dba T.E. Deloss Equip. Rentals v. Kenner Gen. Contractors, Inc.
  764 F.2d 707· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-27 ·cited 30×
  A district court's dismissal for failure to serve within 120 days under Rule 4(j) is not an abuse of discretion if the plaintiff cannot show good cause, and a subsequent Rule 6(b)(2) motion for extension is properly denied as moot if good cause is lacking.
• Stevens v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
  710 F.2d 1224· 7th Cir.· 1983-06-23 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's action for failure to prosecute and for failure to cooperate in discovery, nor in denying the plaintiff's motion for relief from the dismissal order.
• Len C. Scott v. Louie L. Wainwright
  698 F.2d 427· 11th Cir.· 1983-02-14 ·cited 30×
  A guilty plea is not knowing and voluntary if the defendant did not receive reasonably effective assistance of counsel in deciding to plead guilty.
• Pettibone v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  666 F.2d 333· 9th Cir.· 1981-12-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed and no formal motion for an extension was made within the prescribed period.
• Mayfield v. United States Parole Comm'n & United States Prob. Off.
  647 F.2d 1053· 10th Cir.· 1981-04-30 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a pro se litigant's failure to file a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal within the 30-day grace period, as required by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5), extinguishes the right to appeal, even if the notice was accepted by the district court.
• Butler v. Pearson
  636 F.2d 526· D.C. Cir.· 1980-08-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the denial of the plaintiffs' motion to reinstate the case under Rule 60(b) constituted an abuse of discretion, reversing the denial and ordering the case reinstated.
• Craig v. Warden Sam P. Garrison
  549 F.2d 306· 4th Cir.· 1977-02-07 ·cited 30×
  When a pro se litigant's notice of appeal is filed within the extension period, the court must advise the litigant of the requirements for excusable neglect before deeming it untimely.
• United States v. Cirami
  535 F.2d 736· 2d Cir.· 1976-05-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the summary judgment, as the appellants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or gross negligence of counsel.
• Winfield Assocs., Inc. v. Stonecipher
  429 F.2d 1087· 10th Cir.· 1970-07-14 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the denial of equitable relief from a default judgment, finding the appellant's situation resulted from inexcusable neglect and failure to pursue available legal remedies like appeal.
• Kenneth and Yvonne Pompi v. City OF Jacksonville
  872 So. 2d 931· Fla. 1st DCA· 2004-03-23 ·cited 29×
  Property owners appealed an eminent domain judgment but missed the deadline due to confusion between two file stamps on the judgment showing different dates. The trial court denied their motion to vacate under rule 1.540(b), relying on the law of the case doctrine. The appellate
• Streetman v. Lynaugh
  812 F.2d 950· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-09 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the facts relevant to the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim were not adequately developed in state court, requiring a remand for an evidentiary hearing.
• J.A.R., Inc. v. Universal Am. Realty Corp.
  485 So. 2d 467· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-03-11 ·cited 29×
  In a landlord-tenant dispute, the trial court entered a default judgment against defendants J.A.R., Inc. and Clarence E. Reynolds without proper notice despite defendants having served a timely letter asserting defenses. The appellate court reversed, holding that the defendants'
• Gavin v. Gavin
  456 So. 2d 535· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-09-19 ·cited 29×
  In a dissolution of marriage case, the court held that a default judgment was improperly entered when the clerk accepted a motion for default before the defendant's timely-served answer could be received by mail. The court reversed the default and final judgment, establishing tha
• United States v. Rothseiden
  680 F.2d 96· 11th Cir.· 1982-07-06 ·cited 29×
  The court held that a motion to dismiss for failure to file a proper notice of appeal should be remanded to the district court to determine if there was excusable neglect for the untimely filing.
• United States v. Hoye
  548 F.2d 1271· 6th Cir.· 1977-02-14 ·cited 29×
  The court held that a timely filed motion for delayed appeal can be treated as a substantial compliance with the notice of appeal requirements, and the defendant's sentencing claims were without merit.
• King v. Tyree's OF Tampa, Inc.
  315 So. 2d 538· Fla. 2d DCA· 1975-07-02 ·cited 29×
  Failure to file a motion for substitution within 90 days after a suggestion of death, as required by RCP 1.260(a)(1), subjects the action to dismissal.
• Martella v. Marine Cooks & Stewards Union, Seafarers Int'l Union of N. Am., Afl-Cio
  448 F.2d 729· 9th Cir.· 1971-09-13 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion to reinstate the case.
• English v. Mary B. Hecht & the N. Forty Corp.
  189 So. 2d 366· Fla. 3d DCA· 1966-08-09 ·cited 29×
  Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of her equity suit for failure to timely file an amended complaint due to her attorney's miscalculation of the deadline. The court reverses, finding the trial court abused its discretion in denying relief under the mistake/excusable neglect standar
• Schuman v. Int'l Consumer Corp.
  50 So. 3d 75· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-12-08 ·cited 28×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of a motion for relief from judgment without an evidentiary hearing in a fraud case. The appellant was tried in absentia and obtained a default judgment against him after his newly retained counsel failed to re
• Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. v. Ronco Inventions, LLC
  890 So. 2d 300· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-12-03 ·cited 28×
  Allstate appealed a trial court order setting aside a default judgment against Ronco Inventions and Popeil Inventions, manufacturers of a defective Showtime Rotisserie allegedly causing a fire loss. The appellate court reversed, finding that while the defendants demonstrated excu
• Chancey v. Chancey
  880 So. 2d 1281· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-09-03 ·cited 28×
  Calvin Chancey, incarcerated during divorce proceedings, was defaulted and obtained a default judgment against him without a hearing on his motion to set aside, despite filing multiple documents suggesting he attempted to respond and raise issues about alleged marital assets and
• Varhol v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.
  909 F.2d 1557· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-13 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in considering an untimely Rule 59 motion for a new trial, as Rule 6(b) prohibits extensions of time for such motions, and the prior precedent allowing such consideration under unique circumstances (Eady v. Foerder) is overruled.
• Pryor v. R.C. Marshall
  711 F.2d 63· 6th Cir.· 1983-07-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that under the amended Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a), a late notice of appeal cannot serve as a substitute for a timely motion for an extension of time based on excusable neglect.
• Am. & Foreign Ins. Ass'n v. Commercial Ins. Co.
  575 F.2d 980· 1st Cir.· 1978-05-12 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside a default judgment against insurance companies and their insured, as they failed to establish lack of personal jurisdiction or a meritorious defense.
• Feeder Line Towing Serv., Inc. v. Toledo
  539 F.2d 1107· 7th Cir.· 1976-08-12 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a good faith, though erroneous, interpretation of conflicting statutes by counsel can constitute "excusable neglect" for late filing of an appeal notice. The court also affirmed the district court's apportionment of fault in an admiralty collision case.
• United States v. Nichols
  534 F.2d 202· 9th Cir.· 1976-04-13 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's requests for depositions at government expense and in admitting evidence of prior similar offenses to prove intent.
• Rothman v. United States
  508 F.2d 648· 3d Cir.· 1975-01-31 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a pro se prisoner's petition, even if styled under § 2255, should be treated as a writ of coram nobis if the petitioner is no longer in custody and alleges fundamental errors of fact.
• Tolson v. Hodge
  411 F.2d 123· 4th Cir.· 1969-05-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that once jurisdiction is established, Federal Rule 13 governs counterclaims, not state law on capacity, and that the district court abused its discretion in denying relief from a default judgment due to excusable neglect.
• United States v. Smith
  387 F.2d 268· 6th Cir.· 1967-12-28 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the defendant's right to appeal was prejudiced by the district court's failure to advise him of his appeal rights and the appointed counsel's failure to file a timely notice of appeal. The court granted the motion to appeal in forma pauperis.
• Charlson Realty Co. v. The United States
  384 F.2d 434· Ct. Cl.· 1967-10-13 ·cited 28×
  The court should hold that the suit was 'begun' within the statutory period based on the plaintiff's action, not solely on mail delivery time, to avoid an inequitable forfeiture.
• Buckley v. United States
  382 F.2d 611· 10th Cir.· 1967-09-07 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, as no excusable neglect was demonstrated.
• Gordon v. Vaughan
  193 So. 2d 474· Fla. 3d DCA· 1967-01-10 ·cited 28×
  Joan Gordon, a mortgage defendant, obtained a decree pro confesso and final foreclosure decree due to her attorney's abandonment of the case. The court reversed the trial court's denial of her motion to set aside the default judgment, holding that she should be given an opportuni
• ST. Regis Paper Co. v. Billy R. Jackson in Bankruptcy for Harry D. Stone
  369 F.2d 136· 5th Cir.· 1966-11-30 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the 1960 amendment to Bankruptcy Act § 39c makes timely filing of a petition for review or extension mandatory, and failure to comply, even due to lack of notice, does not excuse late filing.
• Hodges v. United States
  282 F.2d 858· D.C. Cir.· 1960-07-21 ·cited 28×
  A motion to vacate a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 cannot be used to collaterally attack a conviction based on a coerced confession if the defendant failed to take a direct appeal, absent government obstruction.
• Knowles v. United States
  260 F.2d 852· 5th Cir.· 1958-10-31 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the notice of appeal was untimely, thus dismissing the main appeal. However, an order taxing costs against the appellant was vacated.
• Howard v. Local 74
  208 F.2d 930· 7th Cir.· 1953-12-01 ·cited 28×
  A lower court cannot extend the time for filing a notice of appeal beyond the statutory limits, except for excusable neglect based on a party's failure to learn of the judgment's entry.
• Anamaria Santiago v. Mauna LOA Invs., LLC
  189 So. 3d 752· Fla.· 2016-03-17 ·cited 27×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Third District Court of Appeal's decision vacating a default judgment in a premises liability case, holding that the district court improperly considered documents outside the complaint when determining whether the complaint stated a cause o
• Paul v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
  68 So. 3d 979· Fla. 2d DCA· 2011-09-02 ·cited 27×
  Joan Paul appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to set aside a default foreclosure judgment entered against her. The court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court mistakenly believed it lacked discretion to grant relief after the foreclosure sale and that men
• Camilo Vera v. Chamberland Adeland
  881 So. 2d 707· Fla. 3d DCA· 2004-09-09 ·cited 27×
  Plaintiff Vera appealed the dismissal of his negligence complaint against deceased defendant Adeland for failure to timely substitute parties after the defendant's death. The court reversed, holding that a bare-bones suggestion of death was legally sufficient to trigger the 90-da
• Coquina Beach Club Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Wagner
  813 So. 2d 1061· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-04-19 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the Association established excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and due diligence, entitling it to have the clerk's default set aside.
• Spika v. The Vill. OF Lombard
  763 F.2d 282· 7th Cir.· 1985-05-22 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a district court's grant of relief under Rule 60(b)(6) to revive a lost right to appeal was improper when the sole asserted reason was the failure to receive notice of the judgment's entry, and the appellant demonstrated insufficient diligence.
• Kapetanopoulos v. Herbert
  449 So. 2d 947· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-05-04 ·cited 27×
  Appellants were defaulted for failing to file responsive pleadings in a personal injury action, and a judgment was entered against them. The court reversed, finding that appellants established both excusable neglect and a meritorious defense, as they reasonably relied on represen
• Marshall v. Monroe & Sons, Inc.
  615 F.2d 1156· 6th Cir.· 1980-02-26 ·cited 27×
  The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) has statutory authority to apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to grant relief from final orders, and it did not abuse its discretion in reinstating Monroe's Notice of Contest.
• Affiliated Mktg., Inc. v. Dyco Chems. & Coatings, Inc.
  340 So. 2d 1240· Fla. 2d DCA· 1976-12-17 ·cited 27×
  This case addresses the standards for vacating arbitration awards under Florida law. The court held that a trial judge improperly vacated an arbitration award merely because the judge believed additional corroborating evidence should be obtained, rather than on grounds specified
• Provident Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. Gorsuch
  323 F.2d 839· 9th Cir.· 1963-10-01 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a default judgment was improperly entered due to excusable neglect and that the merger was not void on the grounds asserted by the trial court, thus reversing the judgment.
• Emmer v. Brucato
  813 So. 2d 264· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-04-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the default judgment, as the appellant failed to meet the required legal standards.