Rice v. James

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rice v. James

740 So. 2d 7, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3312, 1999 WL 147367

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 19, 1999

DocketNo. 98-2503

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 740 So. 2d 7 (Rice v. James) 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

Rice v. James, 740 So. 2d 7, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3312, 1999 WL 147367 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ALLEN, J.

The appellant challenges an order by which the court refused to set aside a judgment entered upon a default. The appellant’s motion to set aside the judgment was filed under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.500(d), which provides that the judgment may be set aside in accordance with Fla. [8]*8R. Civ. P. 1.540(b). Such relief may be had on a showing of excusable neglect, due diligence in pursuing relief, and the assertion of a meritorious defense. E.g., Markowski v. Attel Bank Int, 701 So.2d 416 (Fla. 8d DCA 1997). In the present case the court found excusable neglect, and there does not appear to be any question as to the appellant’s due diligence. The appellant also asserted meritorious defenses in sworn pleadings accompanying her motion to set aside the judgment. Although the appellees have suggested that the appellant’s credibility is suspect, and that she would not ultimately prevail on the facts, these are matters which may be pursued at a trial on the merits. As emphasized in cases such as Markowski, Florida courts have a longstanding policy favoring adjudications on the merits, and inasmuch as the appellant satisfied the requirements for relief in accordance with rule 1.540(b) the judgment should have been set aside. The appealed order is therefore reversed and the case is remanded.

WEBSTER and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.

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

ALLEN, J.

The appellant challenges an order by which the court refused to set aside a judgment entered upon a default. The appellant’s motion to set aside the judgment was filed under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.500(d), which provides that the judgment may be set aside in accordance with Fla. [8]*8R. Civ. P. 1.540(b). Such relief may be had on a showing of excusable neglect, due diligence in pursuing relief, and the assertion of a meritorious defense. E.g., Markowski v. Attel Bank Int, 701 So.2d 416 (Fla. 8d DCA 1997). In the present case the court found excusable neglect, and there does not appear to be any question as to the appellant’s due diligence. The appellant also asserted meritorious defenses in sworn pleadings accompanying her motion to set aside the judgment. Although the appellees have suggested that the appellant’s credibility is suspect, and that she would not ultimately prevail on the facts, these are matters which may be pursued at a trial on the merits. As emphasized in cases such as Markowski, Florida courts have a longstanding policy favoring adjudications on the merits, and inasmuch as the appellant satisfied the requirements for relief in accordance with rule 1.540(b) the judgment should have been set aside. The appealed order is therefore reversed and the case is remanded.

WEBSTER and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

740 So. 2d 7, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3312, 1999 WL 147367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-james-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack