Nico Leasing, Inc. v. Viacao Barao De Maua Ltda.
668 So. 2d 335, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1565, 1996 WL 72324
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 21, 1996·No. No. 95-2482·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
The order under review, which denied a motion to set aside a clerk’s default, is reversed because the default was improperly secured without notice after the plaintiff became aware that the defendant was or would be represented by counsel and desired actively to defend the case. Sklar v. Brawley, 651 So.2d 1314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Ole, Inc. v. Yariv, 566 So.2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Reicheinbach v. Southeast Bank, N.A., 462 So.2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Nico Leasing, Inc. v. Viacao Barao De Maua Ltda., 668 So. 2d 335, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1565, 1996 WL 72324 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).
668 So. 2d 335 (Nico Leasing, Inc. v. Viacao Barao De Maua Ltda.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hornblower v. Cobb
932 So. 2d 402 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Suncore Engineering, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co.
723 So. 2d 380 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)