Hanrahan v. Hillard

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hanrahan v. Hillard

459 So. 2d 1166, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2530, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16419

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 4, 1984

DocketNo. 83-1768

StatusPublished

This text of 459 So. 2d 1166 (Hanrahan v. Hillard) 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

Hanrahan v. Hillard, 459 So. 2d 1166, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2530, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16419 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In light of the unrebutted sworn showing of the defendant’s actions in attempted defense of the complaint, which we hold established that his failure to answer and defend formally and timely was the result of “excusable neglect,” see B.C. Builders Supply Co. v. Maldonado, 405 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Imperial Industries, Inc. v. Moore Pipe & Sprinkler Co., 261 So.2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), and the parties’ stipulation that meritorious defenses and due diligence had also been demonstrated, the order denying the motion to vacate the default and default judgment entered below was a gross abuse of discretion, see Anish v. Topiwala, 430 So.2d 990 [1167]*1167(Fla. 3d DCA 1983); B.C. Builders Supply Co. v. Maldonado, supra, and is consequently reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In light of the unrebutted sworn showing of the defendant’s actions in attempted defense of the complaint, which we hold established that his failure to answer and defend formally and timely was the result of “excusable neglect,” see B.C. Builders Supply Co. v. Maldonado, 405 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Imperial Industries, Inc. v. Moore Pipe & Sprinkler Co., 261 So.2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), and the parties’ stipulation that meritorious defenses and due diligence had also been demonstrated, the order denying the motion to vacate the default and default judgment entered below was a gross abuse of discretion, see Anish v. Topiwala, 430 So.2d 990 [1167]*1167(Fla. 3d DCA 1983); B.C. Builders Supply Co. v. Maldonado, supra, and is consequently reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

459 So. 2d 1166, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2530, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanrahan-v-hillard-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack