West v. Michele Pommier Models, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

West v. Michele Pommier Models, Inc.

681 So. 2d 930, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11405, 1996 WL 625910

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 30, 1996

DocketNo. 96-573

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 681 So. 2d 930 (West v. Michele Pommier Models, 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

West v. Michele Pommier Models, Inc., 681 So. 2d 930, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11405, 1996 WL 625910 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the denial of appellant’s motion to vacate a default and default judgment entered pursuant thereto as well as a motion for rehearing. We reverse upon our finding in the record that appellant established both excusable neglect for not timely responding to the complaint and a meritorious defense to the action. Furthermore, he responded diligently upon learning of the default and default judgment. E.g., Sanchez v. Horrell, 660 So.2d 366, 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Inter-Atlantic Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Hernandez, 632 So.2d 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Given the well established preference in the law for resolving disputes on the merits, Hanft v. Church, 671 So.2d 249, 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (citing North Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So.2d 849, 853 (Fla.1962)), we conclude that the trial court grossly abused its discretion when it declined to set aside the default and default judgment and denied the motion for rehearing.

Reversed for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the denial of appellant’s motion to vacate a default and default judgment entered pursuant thereto as well as a motion for rehearing. We reverse upon our finding in the record that appellant established both excusable neglect for not timely responding to the complaint and a meritorious defense to the action. Furthermore, he responded diligently upon learning of the default and default judgment. E.g., Sanchez v. Horrell, 660 So.2d 366, 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Inter-Atlantic Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Hernandez, 632 So.2d 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Given the well established preference in the law for resolving disputes on the merits, Hanft v. Church, 671 So.2d 249, 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (citing North Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So.2d 849, 853 (Fla.1962)), we conclude that the trial court grossly abused its discretion when it declined to set aside the default and default judgment and denied the motion for rehearing.

Reversed for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

681 So. 2d 930, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11405, 1996 WL 625910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/west-v-michele-pommier-models-inc-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack