Peters MacH. Corp. v. BLAIRSVILLE MACH. PRODUCTS CO., INC.

413 So. 2d 802
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 20, 1982
Docket81-820
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 413 So. 2d 802 (Peters MacH. Corp. v. BLAIRSVILLE MACH. PRODUCTS CO., 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
Peters MacH. Corp. v. BLAIRSVILLE MACH. PRODUCTS CO., INC., 413 So. 2d 802 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

413 So.2d 802 (1982)

PETERS MACHINERY CORPORATION, Appellant,
v.
BLAIRSVILLE MACHINE PRODUCTS CO., INC., a Pennsylvania Corp., Appellee.

No. 81-820.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 20, 1982.
Rehearing Denied May 28, 1982.

*803 Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Mallory H. Horton, Miami, for appellant.

Maland & Turetsky and Robert C. Maland, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Peters Machinery Corporation, defendant below, appeals from a final judgment entered against it and alleges as error the trial court's failure to set aside a default and subsequent final judgment. A second, but collateral issue with regard to attorney's fees awarded by the trial court is also claimed as error.

As to the first issue, the appellant has failed to provide a proper record for our review. Accordingly, we presume the trial court's findings following an evidentiary hearing are correct. Fricke v. Gaines Construction Co., 105 So.2d 374 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1958). Nor did Peters allege a meritorious defense required by Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540. GACL, Inc. v. Zeger, 276 So.2d 552 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1973). The claim was liquidated and judgment entered on plaintiff's theory of money had and received was proper. Bird v. International Graphics, Inc., 374 So.2d 52 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979).

The second issue presented, regarding attorney's fees, has merit and we reverse that portion of the judgment. Peters was entitled to notice of the unliquidated claim of attorney's fees and was entitled to contest the propriety and the amount of the fees. Scott v. Johnson, 386 So.2d 67 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980); Lyle v. Lyle, 167 So.2d 256 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1964).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.

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

Related

Mathews Corp. v. Green's Pool Serv.
584 So. 2d 1006 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Sanchez v. Allstate Insurance Co.
555 So. 2d 933 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Larjim Management Corp. v. Capital Bank
554 So. 2d 587 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Hart v. Estate of Hart
548 So. 2d 896 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Tuttle v. Miami Dolphins, Ltd.
551 So. 2d 477 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
413 So. 2d 802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peters-mach-corp-v-blairsville-mach-products-co-inc-fladistctapp-1982.