Heritage Supply Co. v. Graham

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Heritage Supply Co. v. Graham

334 So. 2d 840, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 13840

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 15, 1976

DocketNo. BB-497

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 334 So. 2d 840 (Heritage Supply Co. v. Graham) 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

Heritage Supply Co. v. Graham, 334 So. 2d 840, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 13840 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

BOYER, Chief Judge.

By this interlocutory appeal appellant, who was plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of an order of the trial court setting aside a final judgment entered consequent upon default and setting aside the default. No useful purpose will be accomplished by meticulously reciting the uncontroverted facts giving rise to this appeal. Suffice to say that, generally speaking, the vacating of defaults and judgments entered thereon is in the sound, but not unfettered, discretion of the trial court subject to the oft announced principle that if there is any reasonable doubt, it [841]*841should be resolved in favor of allowing a trial on the merits. (See Metcalf v. Langston, Fla.App. 1st., 1974, 296 So.2d 81 and authorities therein cited). Although it is difficult to excuse the almost flagrant manner in which appellee’s attorney handled this case, we cannot say that as a matter of law the learned, experienced and able trial judge abused his discretion. Appellant’s reliance for reversal on Metcalf v. Langston, supra, is misplaced. While reaffirming the principles in that case reiterated, we again point out that there the trial court denied a motion to vacate; which action, under the circumstances of that case, we affirmed.

The rule that actions of a trial judge reach an appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness is also applicable to review of orders incident to vacating defaults and final judgments consequent thereon.

AFFIRMED.

McCORD & SMITH, JJ„ concur.

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

BOYER, Chief Judge.

By this interlocutory appeal appellant, who was plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of an order of the trial court setting aside a final judgment entered consequent upon default and setting aside the default. No useful purpose will be accomplished by meticulously reciting the uncontroverted facts giving rise to this appeal. Suffice to say that, generally speaking, the vacating of defaults and judgments entered thereon is in the sound, but not unfettered, discretion of the trial court subject to the oft announced principle that if there is any reasonable doubt, it [841]*841should be resolved in favor of allowing a trial on the merits. (See Metcalf v. Langston, Fla.App. 1st., 1974, 296 So.2d 81 and authorities therein cited). Although it is difficult to excuse the almost flagrant manner in which appellee’s attorney handled this case, we cannot say that as a matter of law the learned, experienced and able trial judge abused his discretion. Appellant’s reliance for reversal on Metcalf v. Langston, supra, is misplaced. While reaffirming the principles in that case reiterated, we again point out that there the trial court denied a motion to vacate; which action, under the circumstances of that case, we affirmed.

The rule that actions of a trial judge reach an appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness is also applicable to review of orders incident to vacating defaults and final judgments consequent thereon.

AFFIRMED.

McCORD & SMITH, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

334 So. 2d 840, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 13840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heritage-supply-co-v-graham-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack