Pieco, Inc. v. Sunset Amoco West, Inc.

597 So. 2d 972, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5471, 1992 WL 98320
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 12, 1992·No. No. 91-2519·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order denying Pieco, Inc.’s [Pieco] motion to set aside a default. Pieco met the requirements for vacating a default by: demonstrating excusable neglect for failing to respond to the complaint, Cinkat Transp., Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 596 So.2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Hialeah, Inc. v. Adams, 566 So.2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 576 So.2d 284 (Fla.1990); Okeechobee Imports, Inc. v. American Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Fla., 558 So.2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); asserting a meritorious defense in its proposed answer, Cinkat; Atlantic Asphalt & Equip. Co. v. Mairena, 578 So.2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Fortune Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 490 So.2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); and acting with reasonable promptness in moving to set aside the default. Cinkat; Atlantic Asphalt & Equip. Co.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Pieco, Inc. v. Sunset Amoco West, Inc., 597 So. 2d 972, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5471, 1992 WL 98320 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

597 So. 2d 972 (Pieco, Inc. v. Sunset Amoco West, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Golden State Industries, Inc. v. Cueto
883 So. 2d 817 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)