Byfield v. Coutts & Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Byfield v. Coutts & Co.

657 So. 2d 62, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7273, 1995 WL 390313

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 5, 1995·No. No. 94-0162·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We agree with appellant that the trial court should have granted his motion to set aside the default entered by the court, because prior to the entry of the default, appellant had filed a responsive pleading. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.500(c); Nants v. Faria, 553 So.2d 369, 370 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Leon Shaffer Golnick Advertising, Inc. v. Cedar, 423 So.2d 1015, 1016 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). We do not agree with appellant that the trial court lacks jurisdiction over him or that venue was improper.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

DELL, KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We agree with appellant that the trial court should have granted his motion to set aside the default entered by the court, because prior to the entry of the default, appellant had filed a responsive pleading. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.500(c); Nants v. Faria, 553 So.2d 369, 370 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Leon Shaffer Golnick Advertising, Inc. v. Cedar, 423 So.2d 1015, 1016 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). We do not agree with appellant that the trial court lacks jurisdiction over him or that venue was improper.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

DELL, KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Byfield v. Coutts & Co., 657 So. 2d 62, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7273, 1995 WL 390313 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

657 So. 2d 62 (Byfield v. Coutts & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related