General Computer Services, Inc. v. AP SC River Oaks LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida

General Computer Services, Inc. v. AP SC River Oaks LLC

130 So. 3d 722, 2013 WL 6818388, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 20329

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 26, 2013

DocketNos. 3D12-1186, 3D11-2355

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 130 So. 3d 722 (General Computer Services, Inc. v. AP SC River Oaks LLC) 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

General Computer Services, Inc. v. AP SC River Oaks LLC, 130 So. 3d 722, 2013 WL 6818388, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 20329 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

EMAS, J.

Appellant General Computer Services, Inc. (“GCS”) appeals the trial court’s orders denying its motion to vacate a default and default final judgment, as well as an order denying GCS’s successive motion for relief from the final judgment and from a post-default order.

We conclude that upon the record in this case, and contrary to the arguments made by GCS, the default entered by the clerk was not void, see Crocker Invs., Inc. v. Statesman Life Ins. Co., 515 So.2d 1305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), and in fact GCS received actual notice of the motion for default two weeks prior to entry of the default. We further conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that GCS failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or due diligence and in seeking relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, and that principles of res judicata bar successive motions for relief from judgment where the grounds for relief “were repetitive of those asserted in the first motion, or which with due diligence could have been asserted in the first motion.” See Veloso v. Trustcorp Capital Leasing, 791 So.2d 1138, 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (citing Perkins v. Salem, 249 So.2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)).

Affirmed.

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

EMAS, J.

Appellant General Computer Services, Inc. (“GCS”) appeals the trial court’s orders denying its motion to vacate a default and default final judgment, as well as an order denying GCS’s successive motion for relief from the final judgment and from a post-default order.

We conclude that upon the record in this case, and contrary to the arguments made by GCS, the default entered by the clerk was not void, see Crocker Invs., Inc. v. Statesman Life Ins. Co., 515 So.2d 1305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), and in fact GCS received actual notice of the motion for default two weeks prior to entry of the default. We further conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that GCS failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or due diligence and in seeking relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, and that principles of res judicata bar successive motions for relief from judgment where the grounds for relief “were repetitive of those asserted in the first motion, or which with due diligence could have been asserted in the first motion.” See Veloso v. Trustcorp Capital Leasing, 791 So.2d 1138, 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (citing Perkins v. Salem, 249 So.2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 So. 3d 722, 2013 WL 6818388, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 20329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-computer-services-inc-v-ap-sc-river-oaks-llc-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack