HIALEAH, INC. v. ADAMS

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 90-496.

Attorney(S)

Colodny, Fass Talenfeld, and Donna S. Glick, North Miami, and Cindy R. Post, Miami, for appellant. Steel Hector Davis and Peter M. Kramer, Miami, for appellees.

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

On December 2, 1989, the plaintiffs filed a complaint against the defendant, Hialeah, Inc., doing business as Hialeah Park. Service was effectuated on December 6, 1989, when one of the defendant's employees received the complaint and summons. The defendant failed to respond, resulting in the trial court entering a default on December 29, 1989, followed by a final default judgment on January 2, 1990.

Subsequently, on January 13, 1990, the defendant filed a motion to vacate the default and final default judgment, supported by an affidavit from the registered agent stating that the summons and complaint were inadvertently mishandled by clerical staff and only discovered after the final default judgment. The trial court denied this motion on February 2, 1990, concluding the affidavit failed to establish excusable neglect and noting the absence of an affidavit from the employee who was served.

The defendant then filed a second motion to vacate and a motion for rehearing on February 8, 1990, attaching an affidavit from the employee who received the complaint and summons, who stated she had no knowledge of the service and described office procedures for handling suit papers. The trial court denied these motions on March 2, 1990, reasoning that the defendant was not entitled to multiple attempts ("two bites of the apple").

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to vacate the default and final default judgment based on the affidavits submitted.
Whether the defendant's neglect in responding to the complaint constituted excusable neglect sufficient to justify vacating the default judgment.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Associated Medical Inst., Inc. v. Imperatori, 338 So.2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)	Neglect in responding to a complaint is excusable when due to inadvertent mishandling or misfiling of suit papers.	The court found that the defendant's affidavit sufficiently established inadvertent mishandling, supporting excusable neglect.
North Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So.2d 849 (Fla. 1962)	General principles regarding excusable neglect in procedural defaults.	Referenced generally to support the principle that inadvertent clerical errors may justify vacating defaults.
Carter, Hawley, Hale Stores, Inc. v. Whitman, 516 So.2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)	Excusable neglect standard in the context of vacating default judgments.	Reiterated the standard for excusable neglect, applied to affirm that the defendant met this standard.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the trial court’s denial of the motion to vacate based solely on the registered agent’s affidavit, which the trial court found insufficient to establish excusable neglect. The appellate court emphasized that neglect is excusable when caused by inadvertent mishandling or misfiling of suit papers. The defendant’s motion, supported by the registered agent’s sworn affidavit describing clerical mishandling, met this standard. The court found the trial court’s refusal to consider the affidavit from the employee who received the summons as a basis for denial to be an abuse of discretion. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the denial and remanded for further proceedings.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate the default and final default judgment.

The direct effect of this decision is the reversal of the trial court’s order denying the motion to vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent with this holding. No new precedent was established beyond the reaffirmation of existing principles governing excusable neglect in the context of default judgments.

Show full summary ...

HIALEAH, INC., D/B/A HIALEAH PARK, APPELLANT, v. RON A. ADAMS, ET AL., APPELLEES.

PER CURIAM.

On December 2, 1989, the plaintiffs filed a complaint against the defendant, Hialeah, Inc., d/b/a Hialeah Park. The return of service reflects that one of the defendant's employees received the complaint and summons on December 6, 1989. The defendant, however, failed to respond to the complaint. As a result, on December 29, 1989, the trial court entered a default and on January 2, 1990, it entered the final default judgment.

On January 13, 1990, the defendant filed a motion to vacate the default and final default judgment, along with its proposed answer and affirmative defenses. The defendant's registered agent's affidavit was attached to the motion to vacate. The affidavit stated that the clerical staff "inadvertently mishandled" the summons and complaint as a result of the ongoing litigation and that the documents were not discovered until after final default judgment had been entered. On February 2, 1990, the trial court denied the motion to vacate solely on the basis that the registered agent's affidavit failed to establish excusable neglect. Additionally, the court stated that the defendant should have filed an affidavit from the person who was purportedly served with process.

On February 8, 1990, the defendant filed a second motion to vacate and a motion for rehearing. Attached was an affidavit from the employee who received the complaint and summons. The affidavit stated that she had no knowledge of the service of the complaint and it set forth the office procedure for handling suit papers. On March 2, 1990, the trial court denied the motions reasoning that the defendant was not entitled to "two bites of the apple."

The defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to vacate. We agree. As stated earlier, the trial court denied the motion based solely on the fact that it felt that the registered agent's affidavit failed to establish excusable neglect. A defendant's neglect in responding to a complaint is excusable when the inadvertence was due to the mishandling or misfiling of suit papers. See Associated Medical Inst., Inc. v. Imperatori, 338 So.2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); see generally, North Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So.2d 849 (Fla. 1962); Carter, Hawley, Hale Stores, Inc. v. Whitman, 516 So.2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). In the instant case, the defendant's motion to vacate coupled with the registered agent's sworn affidavit established sufficiently that the summons and complaint were inadvertently mishandled by the clerical staff. Thus, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to vacate.

Because we agree that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to vacate, we find no need to address the defendant's remaining contention. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order denying the defendant's motion to vacate the default and final default judgment, and remand for further proceedings.