Arranco Shoes By Carmen, Inc. v. Calzados Milady, S.L.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Arranco Shoes By Carmen, Inc. v. Calzados Milady, S.L.

422 So. 2d 341, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21666

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 9, 1982

DocketNo. 82-1262

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 422 So. 2d 341 (Arranco Shoes By Carmen, Inc. v. Calzados Milady, S.L.) 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

Arranco Shoes By Carmen, Inc. v. Calzados Milady, S.L., 422 So. 2d 341, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21666 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

BASKIN, Judge.

Finding no excusable neglect which. might justify appellant’s failure to respond to process properly served upon its employee during the lengthy period appellant’s business was left in the care of its employee, and finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court, T.I.E. Communications, Inc. v. Toyota Motors Center, Inc., 391 So.2d 697 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Williams v. Stack, 366 So.2d 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), we affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment.

We remand, however, for a new trial on the question of damages. Appellant was not afforded notice of trial on the issue of damages. Tallman Pools of Georgia, Inc. v. Wood, 399 So.2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Scott v. Johnson, 386 So.2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); B/G Amusements, Inc. v. Mystery Fun House, Inc., 381 So.2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.440(c).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

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

BASKIN, Judge.

Finding no excusable neglect which. might justify appellant’s failure to respond to process properly served upon its employee during the lengthy period appellant’s business was left in the care of its employee, and finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court, T.I.E. Communications, Inc. v. Toyota Motors Center, Inc., 391 So.2d 697 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Williams v. Stack, 366 So.2d 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), we affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment.

We remand, however, for a new trial on the question of damages. Appellant was not afforded notice of trial on the issue of damages. Tallman Pools of Georgia, Inc. v. Wood, 399 So.2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Scott v. Johnson, 386 So.2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); B/G Amusements, Inc. v. Mystery Fun House, Inc., 381 So.2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.440(c).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 So. 2d 341, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arranco-shoes-by-carmen-inc-v-calzados-milady-sl-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack