Arvelo v. Richards Department Stores

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Arvelo v. Richards Department Stores

304 So. 2d 546, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7564

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 17, 1974

DocketNo. 74-1087

StatusPublished

This text of 304 So. 2d 546 (Arvelo v. Richards Department Stores) 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

Arvelo v. Richards Department Stores, 304 So. 2d 546, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7564 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellants are the plaintiffs in an action against the defendant for alleged malicious defamation and unlawful detention of the appellant, Alberto Arvelo. Upon defendant’s failure to plead, a default was entered, and upon an ex parte trial, a substantial judgment was entered for both compensatory and punitive damages. Three days after trial and prior to entry of final judgment, the appellee filed its motion to set aside default alleging that it had a men-[547]*547torious defense. The motion was granted and the judgment was set aside. This appeal followed.

Based upon the principles and the authority cited in Imperial Industries, Inc. v. Moore Pipe and Sprinkler Co., Fla.App.1972, 261 So.2d 540, we affirm the order of the trial court.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellants are the plaintiffs in an action against the defendant for alleged malicious defamation and unlawful detention of the appellant, Alberto Arvelo. Upon defendant’s failure to plead, a default was entered, and upon an ex parte trial, a substantial judgment was entered for both compensatory and punitive damages. Three days after trial and prior to entry of final judgment, the appellee filed its motion to set aside default alleging that it had a men-[547]*547torious defense. The motion was granted and the judgment was set aside. This appeal followed.

Based upon the principles and the authority cited in Imperial Industries, Inc. v. Moore Pipe and Sprinkler Co., Fla.App.1972, 261 So.2d 540, we affirm the order of the trial court.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 So. 2d 546, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arvelo-v-richards-department-stores-fladistctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack