Dysart v. an Ultimate Pool Serv. & Repair, Inc.

536 So. 2d 387, 1989 WL 601
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 10, 1989
Docket87-2509
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 536 So. 2d 387 (Dysart v. an Ultimate Pool Serv. & Repair, 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
Dysart v. an Ultimate Pool Serv. & Repair, Inc., 536 So. 2d 387, 1989 WL 601 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

536 So.2d 387 (1989)

Sally DYSART, Individually and Sally Dysart, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellants,
v.
AN ULTIMATE POOL Service & Repair, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

No. 87-2509.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

January 10, 1989.

David B. Javits, North Miami, for appellants.

*388 Jerome P. Ventura, Hollywood, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J.,[*] and HUBBART and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Sally Dysart, individually, and Sally Dysart, Inc., appeal from a court order denying their Motion to Set Aside Default and Relief from Final Judgment.

As to the appellants' first issue on appeal — that the judgment is void because service of process was defective — we affirm the trial court's ruling, made after a full evidentiary hearing, that service was valid. Although conflicting the evidence is sufficient to support the court's finding. It was the appellants' burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that service was invalid. See Magazine v. Bedoya, 475 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Because the appellants failed to file or serve any papers a default on the issue of liability was properly entered. See American Republic Ins. Co. v. WestChester Gen. Hosp., 414 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Nevertheless, it was error for the trial court to award unliquidated damages, after the default was entered, without notice and a hearing in accordance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(c). Cole v. Blackwell, Walker, Gray, Powers, Flick & Hoehl, 523 So.2d 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Lauxmont Farms, Inc. v. Zentner, 514 So.2d 82 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER CONSISTENT PROCEEDINGS.

NOTES

[*] Chief Judge Schwartz participated in the decision but did not hear oral arguments.

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

Related

Aboudraah v. Tartus Group, Inc.
795 So. 2d 79 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Williams v. Direct Dispensing, Inc.
630 So. 2d 1195 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
DeLillo v. Facel Vega, Inc.
541 So. 2d 173 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
536 So. 2d 387, 1989 WL 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dysart-v-an-ultimate-pool-serv-repair-inc-fladistctapp-1989.