Howland v. Schrager

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Howland v. Schrager

964 So. 2d 751, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 12974, 2007 WL 2376627

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 22, 2007

DocketNo. 4D05-3644

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 964 So. 2d 751 (Howland v. Schrager) 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

Howland v. Schrager, 964 So. 2d 751, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 12974, 2007 WL 2376627 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court entered a default and default final judgment in this action brought by appellee, Barry S. Schrager, against appellant, Edward Howland, for fraudulent transfer of property by appel-lee’s former wife to appellant. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to vacate the default judgment, given that appellant failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or inadvertence. However, we agree with appellant that he was not given proper notice before the trial court entered final judgment awarding damages based solely on appellee’s affidavit. Because this action involves unliquidated damages, appellant was entitled to notice of an order setting the matter for trial and an opportunity to defend. See Viets v. Am. Recruiters Enters., Inc., 922 So.2d 1090, 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA2006).

Accordingly, we reverse the damages portion of the order and final judgment and remand for trial, after notice, on the damages issue.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

SHAHOOD, C.J., GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court entered a default and default final judgment in this action brought by appellee, Barry S. Schrager, against appellant, Edward Howland, for fraudulent transfer of property by appel-lee’s former wife to appellant. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to vacate the default judgment, given that appellant failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or inadvertence. However, we agree with appellant that he was not given proper notice before the trial court entered final judgment awarding damages based solely on appellee’s affidavit. Because this action involves unliquidated damages, appellant was entitled to notice of an order setting the matter for trial and an opportunity to defend. See Viets v. Am. Recruiters Enters., Inc., 922 So.2d 1090, 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA2006).

Accordingly, we reverse the damages portion of the order and final judgment and remand for trial, after notice, on the damages issue.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

SHAHOOD, C.J., GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

964 So. 2d 751, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 12974, 2007 WL 2376627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howland-v-schrager-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack