Paterno v. Hatton

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Paterno v. Hatton

687 So. 2d 18, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12926, 1996 WL 709349

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 11, 1996

DocketNo. 96-2619

StatusPublished

This text of 687 So. 2d 18 (Paterno v. Hatton) 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

Paterno v. Hatton, 687 So. 2d 18, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12926, 1996 WL 709349 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Paterno appeals a non-final order denying his motion to quash service of process and to set aside default, contending that he did not live at the address where the complaint was served and that, even if the service of process was valid, the default should still be set aside because of excusable neglect. Appellant’s first point is rendered moot due to our resolution of his second point. As to appellant’s second point, we vacate the default order and reverse. See North Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So.2d 849, 853 (Fla.1962) (any reasonable doubt as to vacating a default should be resolved in favor of setting aside the default and allowing a trial on the merits of the ease) (citing [19]*19State Bank of Eau Gallie v. Raymond, 103 Fla. 649,138 So. 40 (1931)).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Paterno appeals a non-final order denying his motion to quash service of process and to set aside default, contending that he did not live at the address where the complaint was served and that, even if the service of process was valid, the default should still be set aside because of excusable neglect. Appellant’s first point is rendered moot due to our resolution of his second point. As to appellant’s second point, we vacate the default order and reverse. See North Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So.2d 849, 853 (Fla.1962) (any reasonable doubt as to vacating a default should be resolved in favor of setting aside the default and allowing a trial on the merits of the ease) (citing [19]*19State Bank of Eau Gallie v. Raymond, 103 Fla. 649,138 So. 40 (1931)).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

687 So. 2d 18, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12926, 1996 WL 709349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paterno-v-hatton-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack