Miami National Bank v. Barnett Bank of Miami

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Miami National Bank v. Barnett Bank of Miami

350 So. 2d 522, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16955

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 4, 1977

DocketNos. 76-877, 76-985

StatusPublished

This text of 350 So. 2d 522 (Miami National Bank v. Barnett Bank of Miami) 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

Miami National Bank v. Barnett Bank of Miami, 350 So. 2d 522, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16955 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Miami National Bank appeals from an adverse final default judgment entered in a garnishment action in favor of Barnett Bank of Miami and an order denying motion to set aside the default judgment contending inter alia the trial court erred in refusing to set aside the default judgment under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.500(d), 1.540(b) on the [523]*523ground of excusable neglect. We agree and reverse.

Miami National Bank filed an answer one day late containing a meritorious defense to a writ of garnishment served on it by Barnett Bank of Miami. The late filing of the answer was occasioned by the termination of Miami National Bank’s vice-president who was authorized to review writs of garnishment and execute answers and the consequent time involved in re-assigning his duties to another person at the bank. Such a showing constitutes excusable neglect under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.500(d), 1.540(d) sufficient to set aside the default judgment. Terrazzo and Marble Supply Co. v. Columbia Bank of Ybor City, 173 So.2d 475 (Fla.2d DCA 1965).

The default judgment and the order denying the motion to set aside the default judgment are reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Miami National Bank appeals from an adverse final default judgment entered in a garnishment action in favor of Barnett Bank of Miami and an order denying motion to set aside the default judgment contending inter alia the trial court erred in refusing to set aside the default judgment under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.500(d), 1.540(b) on the [523]*523ground of excusable neglect. We agree and reverse.

Miami National Bank filed an answer one day late containing a meritorious defense to a writ of garnishment served on it by Barnett Bank of Miami. The late filing of the answer was occasioned by the termination of Miami National Bank’s vice-president who was authorized to review writs of garnishment and execute answers and the consequent time involved in re-assigning his duties to another person at the bank. Such a showing constitutes excusable neglect under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.500(d), 1.540(d) sufficient to set aside the default judgment. Terrazzo and Marble Supply Co. v. Columbia Bank of Ybor City, 173 So.2d 475 (Fla.2d DCA 1965).

The default judgment and the order denying the motion to set aside the default judgment are reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

350 So. 2d 522, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miami-national-bank-v-barnett-bank-of-miami-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack