NCR Corp. v. Cannon & Wolfe Lumber Co.

501 So. 2d 157, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 329, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6428
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 23, 1987
DocketBO-429, BO-29
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 501 So. 2d 157 (NCR Corp. v. Cannon & Wolfe Lumber Co.) 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
NCR Corp. v. Cannon & Wolfe Lumber Co., 501 So. 2d 157, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 329, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6428 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

501 So.2d 157 (1987)

NCR CORPORATION, Appellant,
v.
CANNON & WOLFE LUMBER CO., INC., Appellee.

Nos. BO-429, BO-29.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 23, 1987.

Michael E. Demont of Gallahger, Baumer, Mikals, Bradford, Cannon & Walters, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellant.

*158 R. Bruce Warren of Warren & Blackburn, Monticello, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from a nonfinal order denying appellant's motion to vacate default judgment (Case No. BO-29) and from nonfinal orders compelling arbitration and adjudicating liability (Case No. BO-429).

We reverse the trial court's order denying the motion to vacate default judgment on the basis that appellant was not afforded notice of appellee's application for default, as required by Rule 1.500(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The rule provides that if a party serves or files "any paper" in the action, he shall be served with notice of the application for default. We find that appellant served a "paper"[1] in the proceedings below and was thereby entitled to notice. See Reicheinbach v. Southeast Bank, N.A., 462 So.2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

Additionally, we vacate the trial court's order adjudicating liability in favor of the appellee, as it was premised solely on the erroneously entered default. We find no error in the trial court's order compelling arbitration.

Accordingly, this cause is reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

BOOTH, C.J., and MILLS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

NOTES

[1] The "paper" filed in this case was a letter drafted and signed by a paralegal employed by appellant's counsel. The letter acknowledged a telephone conversation with appellee's counsel in which appellant was granted an additional 20 days to respond to the third-party complaint.

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

Related

Michael Prada v. Gustavo Pol Ramirez
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2024
M.W. v. SPCP Group V, LLC
163 So. 3d 518 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Geraci v. PREFERRED CAPITAL MARKETS, INC.
802 So. 2d 479 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Lopez v. Suarez
773 So. 2d 572 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Americana Associates, Ltd. v. Coleus
697 So. 2d 573 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Duran v. John Stalder, Inc.
686 So. 2d 627 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Mesones v. Jabbour
639 So. 2d 1000 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Zephyr Aviation Services, Inc. v. Amerijet International, Inc.
631 So. 2d 371 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Ziff v. Stuber
596 So. 2d 754 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
EGF Tampa Associates v. Bohlen
532 So. 2d 1318 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
501 So. 2d 157, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 329, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ncr-corp-v-cannon-wolfe-lumber-co-fladistctapp-1987.