CNH Construction, Inc. v. South Florida Restoration, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

CNH Construction, Inc. v. South Florida Restoration, Inc.

654 So. 2d 287, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4641, 1995 WL 254372

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 3, 1995

DocketNo. 94-2317

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 654 So. 2d 287 (CNH Construction, Inc. v. South Florida Restoration, Inc.) 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

CNH Construction, Inc. v. South Florida Restoration, Inc., 654 So. 2d 287, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4641, 1995 WL 254372 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

CNH Construction, Inc., appeals an order denying its motion to set aside a default and default judgment. We reverse.

Assuming for present purposes that the default was properly entered against the appellant corporation, the default order should have been served on all defendants, including the defaulted corporation. The default order shows no facial indication that it was served on anyone, and defendant’s affidavit of non-receipt is unrebutted. Similarly, the file contains no motion or equivalent request for entry of final judgment, which was essentially obtained by the plaintiff ex parte. The non-defaulted defendants, who are the three directors of the corporation, were entitled to notice of the proceedings. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.080(a); Cardet v. Resolution Trust Corp., 563 So.2d 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Had such notice been given, all parties would have been apprised of the true state of affairs.

The only basis for denial of the motion to set aside the default and default judgment was that the trial court did not feel that the corporation had moved with sufficient diligence. Since the defendants had not been given prompt and proper notice of the actual situation, we do not think that the trial court ruling can be sustained. Accordingly, we reverse the order under review and remand with directions to set aside the default and default judgment.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

CNH Construction, Inc., appeals an order denying its motion to set aside a default and default judgment. We reverse.

Assuming for present purposes that the default was properly entered against the appellant corporation, the default order should have been served on all defendants, including the defaulted corporation. The default order shows no facial indication that it was served on anyone, and defendant’s affidavit of non-receipt is unrebutted. Similarly, the file contains no motion or equivalent request for entry of final judgment, which was essentially obtained by the plaintiff ex parte. The non-defaulted defendants, who are the three directors of the corporation, were entitled to notice of the proceedings. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.080(a); Cardet v. Resolution Trust Corp., 563 So.2d 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Had such notice been given, all parties would have been apprised of the true state of affairs.

The only basis for denial of the motion to set aside the default and default judgment was that the trial court did not feel that the corporation had moved with sufficient diligence. Since the defendants had not been given prompt and proper notice of the actual situation, we do not think that the trial court ruling can be sustained. Accordingly, we reverse the order under review and remand with directions to set aside the default and default judgment.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

654 So. 2d 287, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4641, 1995 WL 254372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cnh-construction-inc-v-south-florida-restoration-inc-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack