Arango v. Cartagena

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Arango v. Cartagena

561 So. 2d 608, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2578, 1990 WL 45505

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 17, 1990

DocketNo. 89-2172

StatusPublished

This text of 561 So. 2d 608 (Arango v. Cartagena) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arango v. Cartagena, 561 So. 2d 608, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2578, 1990 WL 45505 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Janet Arango appeals an adverse final judgment. We reverse.

Appellees Roberto and Maria Jose Cart-agena filed a complaint for damages against Janet Arango and another defendant. The process server’s return of service indicated that service was made on a live-in housekeeper permanently residing at the home of Arango. A default was eventually entered against Arango for failure to file any paper in the action.

Subsequently, Mr. and Mrs. Cartagena filed a motion for entry of final judgment. [609]*609Arango filed a “Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Judgment” in which she contested the sufficiency of service of process. This was supported by an affidavit stating that the person on whom service was made did not reside at the home, nor was she a family member, but instead was a part-time employee.

It is true that Arango’s response was mislabeled and should have been entitled “Motion to Set Aside Default.” See Hall v. Ricardo, 331 So.2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). However, the substance of Arango’s position was clear, and the affidavit set forth a triable issue of fact as to the sufficiency of service. See Johnston v. Halliday, 516 So.2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Hauser, v. Schiff, 341 So.2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); see also North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, 143 So.2d 849, 850-51 (Fla.1962); Okeechobee Imports, Inc. v. American Savings & Loan Ass’n, 558 So.2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

We therefore reverse the final judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Janet Arango appeals an adverse final judgment. We reverse.

Appellees Roberto and Maria Jose Cart-agena filed a complaint for damages against Janet Arango and another defendant. The process server’s return of service indicated that service was made on a live-in housekeeper permanently residing at the home of Arango. A default was eventually entered against Arango for failure to file any paper in the action.

Subsequently, Mr. and Mrs. Cartagena filed a motion for entry of final judgment. [609]*609Arango filed a “Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Judgment” in which she contested the sufficiency of service of process. This was supported by an affidavit stating that the person on whom service was made did not reside at the home, nor was she a family member, but instead was a part-time employee.

It is true that Arango’s response was mislabeled and should have been entitled “Motion to Set Aside Default.” See Hall v. Ricardo, 331 So.2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). However, the substance of Arango’s position was clear, and the affidavit set forth a triable issue of fact as to the sufficiency of service. See Johnston v. Halliday, 516 So.2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Hauser, v. Schiff, 341 So.2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); see also North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, 143 So.2d 849, 850-51 (Fla.1962); Okeechobee Imports, Inc. v. American Savings & Loan Ass’n, 558 So.2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

We therefore reverse the final judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

561 So. 2d 608, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2578, 1990 WL 45505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arango-v-cartagena-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack