Cerella v. Rinker Materials Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cerella v. Rinker Materials Corp.

313 So. 2d 85, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14878

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 2, 1975

DocketNo. 74-432

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 313 So. 2d 85 (Cerella v. Rinker Materials Corp.) 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

Cerella v. Rinker Materials Corp., 313 So. 2d 85, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14878 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying the motion of the defendant, Cerella, to set aside a default judgment and ensuing judicial action based thereon. The gravamen of the appellate plaint concerns the adequacy of the service of process. We have examined the allegations and the record, together with the advices of counsel, and find no reversible error. This finding is based primarily upon the failure of the appellant to furnish us an adequate record whereby error might be demonstrated. His primary motion is unsworn and is non-evidentiary. It is upon the facts contained therein that he rests his case. We note that appellant to this date has not established his residence at the time in question and, hence, we cannot test the bona fides of the search made by the plaintiff. We know that there was a hearing conducted on the motion. However, we have not been furnished with a transcript of those proceedings and such testimony as may have been taken. Forasmuch as we know, the appealed ruling, which is pre[86]*86sumptively valid, was given support before the court at that time. We affirm upon authority of Johnstone v. J. W. English Enterprises, Inc., 155 So.2d 835 (3d DCA Fla.1963).

Affirmed.

OWEN, C. J., WALDEN, J., and BROWN, CECIL, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying the motion of the defendant, Cerella, to set aside a default judgment and ensuing judicial action based thereon. The gravamen of the appellate plaint concerns the adequacy of the service of process. We have examined the allegations and the record, together with the advices of counsel, and find no reversible error. This finding is based primarily upon the failure of the appellant to furnish us an adequate record whereby error might be demonstrated. His primary motion is unsworn and is non-evidentiary. It is upon the facts contained therein that he rests his case. We note that appellant to this date has not established his residence at the time in question and, hence, we cannot test the bona fides of the search made by the plaintiff. We know that there was a hearing conducted on the motion. However, we have not been furnished with a transcript of those proceedings and such testimony as may have been taken. Forasmuch as we know, the appealed ruling, which is pre[86]*86sumptively valid, was given support before the court at that time. We affirm upon authority of Johnstone v. J. W. English Enterprises, Inc., 155 So.2d 835 (3d DCA Fla.1963).

Affirmed.

OWEN, C. J., WALDEN, J., and BROWN, CECIL, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

313 So. 2d 85, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cerella-v-rinker-materials-corp-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack