Napco Paints, Inc. v. LaPorte (US), Inc.

490 So. 2d 1023, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1415, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8492
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 24, 1986
Docket86-305
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 490 So. 2d 1023 (Napco Paints, Inc. v. LaPorte (US), Inc.) 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
Napco Paints, Inc. v. LaPorte (US), Inc., 490 So. 2d 1023, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1415, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8492 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

490 So.2d 1023 (1986)

NAPCO PAINTS, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellant,
v.
LaPORTE (U.S.), INC., Appellee.

No. 86-305.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 24, 1986.
Rehearing Denied July 29, 1986.

*1024 Militana, Militana & Militana, and John Militana, Miami, for appellant.

Garry J. Alhalel, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART, and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The order denying the motion to vacate the final default judgment herein filed by the defendant Napco Paints, Inc. [Napco] pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b)(1), is affirmed upon a holding that: (1) the defendant Napco's motion to vacate filed pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b)(1) fails to set forth a meritorious defense, a precondition to any relief herein, in that: (a) the said motion is unsworn and alleges only that Napco "has a meritorious defense," without setting forth any of the facts of the alleged defense, and (b) no affidavits, evidence or testimony was ever adduced below on the said motion; Newkirk v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, Inc., 464 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Hall v. Byington, 421 So.2d 817, 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Pedro Realty, Inc. v. Silva, 399 So.2d 367, 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), approved, 411 So.2d 872 (Fla. 1982); Tremblay v. Marck, 378 So.2d 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 389 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 1980); Mission East Co. v. Wyszatycki, 362 So.2d 87, 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Perry v. University Cabs, Inc., 344 So.2d 914, 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); and (2) the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the defendant Napco's motion for rehearing on the denial of the motion to vacate, Francisco v. Victoria Marine Shipping, Inc., 486 So.2d 1386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), and therefore could not consider any of the exhibits attached thereto.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Thornton v. Jabeen
683 So. 2d 150 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
INTER-ATLANTIC INS. v. Hernandez
632 So. 2d 1069 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
International Design & Display Group, Inc. v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A.
590 So. 2d 554 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Mathews Corp. v. Green's Pool Serv.
584 So. 2d 1006 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Value Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Ajemian
509 So. 2d 1388 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
City Management Group Corp. v. Aruca
497 So. 2d 275 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
490 So. 2d 1023, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1415, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/napco-paints-inc-v-laporte-us-inc-fladistctapp-1986.