Proenza v. SunTrust Banks, N.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Proenza v. SunTrust Banks, N.A.

263 So. 3d 225

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 16, 2019

DocketNo. 3D18-687

StatusPublished

This text of 263 So. 3d 225 (Proenza v. SunTrust Banks, N.A.) 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

Proenza v. SunTrust Banks, N.A., 263 So. 3d 225 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See B. C. Builders Supply Co. v. Maldonado, 405 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (There exists a long standing policy of liberality toward vacating of defaults and that a showing of gross abuse of a trial court's discretion is necessary on appeal to justify reversal of the lower court's ruling on a motion to vacate a default.); M.W. v. SPCP Group V, LLC, 163 So.3d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) ("Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court has emphasized that if there is any reasonable doubt in the matter [of vacating a default], it should be resolved in favor of granting the application and allowing a trial upon the merits of the case.") (citing N. Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So.2d 849, 852 (Fla. 1962) (reversing a district court's holding that a mere abuse of the trial judge's discretion is a sufficient basis for reversal of his ruling on the motion to vacate) ); Carter, Hawley, Hale Stores, Inc. v. Whitman, 516 So.2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (reversing trial court's order denying appellant corporation's motion to vacate a default, because appellant's delay in answering appellee retailer's complaint constituted excusable neglect, and appellant acted with due diligence after discovering the default.)

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See B. C. Builders Supply Co. v. Maldonado, 405 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (There exists a long standing policy of liberality toward vacating of defaults and that a showing of gross abuse of a trial court's discretion is necessary on appeal to justify reversal of the lower court's ruling on a motion to vacate a default.); M.W. v. SPCP Group V, LLC, 163 So.3d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) ("Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court has emphasized that if there is any reasonable doubt in the matter [of vacating a default], it should be resolved in favor of granting the application and allowing a trial upon the merits of the case.") (citing N. Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So.2d 849, 852 (Fla. 1962) (reversing a district court's holding that a mere abuse of the trial judge's discretion is a sufficient basis for reversal of his ruling on the motion to vacate) ); Carter, Hawley, Hale Stores, Inc. v. Whitman, 516 So.2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (reversing trial court's order denying appellant corporation's motion to vacate a default, because appellant's delay in answering appellee retailer's complaint constituted excusable neglect, and appellant acted with due diligence after discovering the default.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 So. 3d 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/proenza-v-suntrust-banks-na-fladistctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack