Renuart-Bailey-Cheely Lumber and Supply Company v. Hall

264 So. 2d 84
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 11, 1972
Docket72-480
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 264 So. 2d 84 (Renuart-Bailey-Cheely Lumber and Supply Company v. Hall) 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
Renuart-Bailey-Cheely Lumber and Supply Company v. Hall, 264 So. 2d 84 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Opinion

264 So.2d 84 (1972)

RENUART-BAILEY-CHEELY LUMBER AND SUPPLY COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Appellant,
v.
Richard Allen HALL, Appellee.

No. 72-480.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 11, 1972.

*85 Gong & Storace, Miami, for appellant.

Podhurst, Orseck & Parks, Fuller, Brumer, Moss & Cohen, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Renuart-Bailey-Cheely Lumber and Supply Company, brings this interlocutory appeal from an order of the lower court denying its motion to set aside default.

A review of the record on appeal reveals that a default was entered against defendant-appellant when no answer or other response was filed following the receipt of plaintiff-appellee's complaint. After entry of the default, neither a motion for final judgment nor any other pleading, order or notice was filed nor any hearing held on this cause until defendant-appellant moved to set aside the default. In affidavits filed subsequent to the default, defendant-appellant stated that when the complaint was received it was transmitted to the appropriate insurance department office within the Renuart-Bailey-Cheely organization. This office was in the process of moving and the complaint was temporarily lost. When the complaint was eventually found, it was forwarded to the insurance company who refused to defend the suit because the subject default was already entered. Defendant-appellant then turned the matter over to their attorneys who did everything possible to vacate the default.

On these facts we find that the lower court should have vacated the default based upon the defense of excusable neglect. North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, Fla. 1962, 143 So.2d 849; Imperial Industries, Inc. v. Moore Pipe and Sprinkler Co., Fla. App. 1972, 261 So.2d 540; General Finance Corp. v. Northside Bank of Miami, Fla. App. 1968, 212 So.2d 917. By this action no prejudice will be worked against any party.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Miami-Dade County v. Coral Bay Section C Homeowners Ass'n
979 So. 2d 318 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Miami-Dade County v. CORAL BAY SECTION C
979 So. 2d 318 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Carter Hawley Hale Stores v. Whitman
516 So. 2d 83 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Yelvington Transport, Inc. v. Hersman
513 So. 2d 1361 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Fortune Ins. Co. v. Sanchez
490 So. 2d 249 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Gay v. Moreland
450 So. 2d 1270 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
BC Builders Supply Co., Inc. v. Maldonado
405 So. 2d 1345 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
MIAMI C'WEALTH REALTY v. Rinehart Volkswagen, Inc.
387 So. 2d 530 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Flaxman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
340 So. 2d 515 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)
Yanks v. Ferendino/Grafton/Spillis/Candela Architects, Engineers & Planners, Inc.
334 So. 2d 69 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)
Blastit, Inc. v. Jerac Corp.
293 So. 2d 751 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
264 So. 2d 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/renuart-bailey-cheely-lumber-and-supply-company-v-hall-fladistctapp-1972.