Byfield v. Coutts & Co.

657 So. 2d 62, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7273, 1995 WL 390313
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 5, 1995
DocketNo. 94-0162
StatusPublished

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

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

Related

Leon Shaffer Golnick Advertising, Inc. v. Cedar
423 So. 2d 1015 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Nants v. Faria
553 So. 2d 369 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
657 So. 2d 62, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7273, 1995 WL 390313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byfield-v-coutts-co-fladistctapp-1995.