Armor Roofing Corp. v. Reba Investment, N.V.

Florida Circuit Courts

Armor Roofing Corp. v. Reba Investment, N.V.

26 Fla. Supp. 2d 145

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedJanuary 11, 1988

DocketCase No. 86 172 AP (County Court Case No. 85-23523SP05)

StatusPublished

This text of 26 Fla. Supp. 2d 145 (Armor Roofing Corp. v. Reba Investment, N.V.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armor Roofing Corp. v. Reba Investment, N.V., 26 Fla. Supp. 2d 145 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBINSON, J.

This case is governed by the Rules of Summary Procedure.

Plaintiff, REBA INVESTMENTS, N.V. filed a Statement of Claim. An answer was filed one day before the pretrial. However, the defendant failed to appear as required by SCR 7.090(a) at the pretrial. The Court entered a default.

Subsequently, plaintiff filed a Motion for Final Judgment and an [146]*146Affidavit of Non-payment verified by the plaintiffs attorney. No pleading was either signed or sworn to by any officer or employee of the plaintiff-corporation. The Court took no testimony and read; no affidavit establishing the Statement of Claim. The plaintiff seeks a nonliquidated amount in this action. SCR 7.170(b) requires the judge to receive evidence establishing damages. A sufficiently detailed verified Statement of Claim would have been sufficient under the relaxed procedures of the Summary Rules, Trawick, Fla. Proc. and Prac. § 25-4. But, the Statement of Claim was signed by plaintiffs attorney.

Judgment for plaintiff is vacated and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent to this order and the Rules of Summary Procedure.

KAYE and KORNBLUM, JJ., CONCUR.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBINSON, J.

This case is governed by the Rules of Summary Procedure.

Plaintiff, REBA INVESTMENTS, N.V. filed a Statement of Claim. An answer was filed one day before the pretrial. However, the defendant failed to appear as required by SCR 7.090(a) at the pretrial. The Court entered a default.

Subsequently, plaintiff filed a Motion for Final Judgment and an [146]*146Affidavit of Non-payment verified by the plaintiffs attorney. No pleading was either signed or sworn to by any officer or employee of the plaintiff-corporation. The Court took no testimony and read; no affidavit establishing the Statement of Claim. The plaintiff seeks a nonliquidated amount in this action. SCR 7.170(b) requires the judge to receive evidence establishing damages. A sufficiently detailed verified Statement of Claim would have been sufficient under the relaxed procedures of the Summary Rules, Trawick, Fla. Proc. and Prac. § 25-4. But, the Statement of Claim was signed by plaintiffs attorney.

Judgment for plaintiff is vacated and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent to this order and the Rules of Summary Procedure.

KAYE and KORNBLUM, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 Fla. Supp. 2d 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armor-roofing-corp-v-reba-investment-nv-flacirct-1988.