Collazo v. Gomolinsky

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Collazo v. Gomolinsky

496 So. 2d 243, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2273, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10291

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 28, 1986

DocketNo. 86-608

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 496 So. 2d 243 (Collazo v. Gomolinsky) 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

Collazo v. Gomolinsky, 496 So. 2d 243, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2273, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10291 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the trial court denying appellant’s motion to set aside a final judgment entered upon a default.

We have considered the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the final judgment and default upon a finding that there was no showing of excusable neglect. See Doctor’s Hospital of Hollywood, Inc. v. Madison, 415 So.2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 422 So.2d 842 (Fla.1982); Schwab & Co. v. Breezy Bay, Inc., 360 So.2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

No abuse of discretion having been shown, the order under review is AFFIRMED.

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 of the trial court denying appellant’s motion to set aside a final judgment entered upon a default.

We have considered the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the final judgment and default upon a finding that there was no showing of excusable neglect. See Doctor’s Hospital of Hollywood, Inc. v. Madison, 415 So.2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 422 So.2d 842 (Fla.1982); Schwab & Co. v. Breezy Bay, Inc., 360 So.2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

No abuse of discretion having been shown, the order under review is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

496 So. 2d 243, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2273, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collazo-v-gomolinsky-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack