WJA Realty, Ltd. Partnership v. Schofill

District Court of Appeal of Florida

WJA Realty, Ltd. Partnership v. Schofill

640 So. 2d 1165, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6614, 1994 WL 316295

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 5, 1994

DocketNo. 94-906

StatusPublished

This text of 640 So. 2d 1165 (WJA Realty, Ltd. Partnership v. Schofill) 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

WJA Realty, Ltd. Partnership v. Schofill, 640 So. 2d 1165, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6614, 1994 WL 316295 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant WJA Realty, Limited Partnership from a non-final order denying the defendant’s motion to set aside (1) a clerk’s default on a three-count complaint and (2) a subsequent final judgment entered thereon. We have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), (a)(5).

We reverse the orders under review and remand the cause to the trial court with directions to set aside the clerk’s default and final judgment entered thereon. We reach this result because the defendant demonstrated below (1) excusable neglect in failing to respond timely to the plaintiff’s complaint due to a miscommunication between the defendant and its counsel that counsel was being retained to respond to the subject complaint, see Somero v. Hendry General Hosp., 467 So.2d 1103, 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 476 So.2d 674 (Fla.1985); B.C. Builders Supply Co. v. Maldonado, 405 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); (2) a meritorious defense with the answer and affirmative defenses attached to its motion to vacate, see Somero; B.C. Builders Supply Co.; and (3) due diligence in moving to set aside the clerk’s default upon learning of the default. See Cunningham v. White, 390 So.2d 467, 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). We have not overlooked the plaintiffs contrary arguments, but are not persuaded by them.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant WJA Realty, Limited Partnership from a non-final order denying the defendant’s motion to set aside (1) a clerk’s default on a three-count complaint and (2) a subsequent final judgment entered thereon. We have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), (a)(5).

We reverse the orders under review and remand the cause to the trial court with directions to set aside the clerk’s default and final judgment entered thereon. We reach this result because the defendant demonstrated below (1) excusable neglect in failing to respond timely to the plaintiff’s complaint due to a miscommunication between the defendant and its counsel that counsel was being retained to respond to the subject complaint, see Somero v. Hendry General Hosp., 467 So.2d 1103, 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 476 So.2d 674 (Fla.1985); B.C. Builders Supply Co. v. Maldonado, 405 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); (2) a meritorious defense with the answer and affirmative defenses attached to its motion to vacate, see Somero; B.C. Builders Supply Co.; and (3) due diligence in moving to set aside the clerk’s default upon learning of the default. See Cunningham v. White, 390 So.2d 467, 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). We have not overlooked the plaintiffs contrary arguments, but are not persuaded by them.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

640 So. 2d 1165, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6614, 1994 WL 316295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wja-realty-ltd-partnership-v-schofill-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack