Buffington v. Torcise
| Citation | 504 So.2d 490,12 Fla. L. Weekly 848 |
| Decision Date | 24 March 1987 |
| Docket Number | 86-743,Nos. 86-162,s. 86-162 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 848 Ray E. BUFFINGTON, Appellant, v. Steve TORCISE and South Dade Realty, Inc., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Joyce M. Siemon and Jay Rothlein, North Miami Beach, for appellant.
Paul G. Fletcher, Homestead, and Giselle D. Lylen, Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder & Carson and Gregory J. Willis, Miami, for appellees.
Before NESBITT, DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.
Buffington appeals from the trial court's order striking his complaint, dismissing his lis pendens, and entering a default against him on Torcise's counterclaims and from the entry of a default judgment for Torcise in the amount of $44,555.50. We find the appellant's contentions, as they relate to the entry of the court order, to be without merit. Since the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking Buffington's pleadings, Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.380(d); see Mercer v. Raine, 443 So.2d 944 (Fla.1983); cf. Wallraff v. T.G.I. Fridays, Inc., 490 So.2d 50 (Fla.1986) (), dismissing the lis pendens,see § 48.23(3), Fla.Stat. (1985), or in entering a default against Buffington,see Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.500, we affirm the order under review.
We find merit, however, in Buffington's contention that the trial court erred in entering a final default judgment without holding a hearing to determine the actual damages Torcise suffered. Torcise, by the very nature of his claims, rejected the existence of a valid contract. Furthermore, though Buffington was deemed to have admitted all of the information in Torcise's requests for admission as a result of Buffington's failure to reply, see Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.370(a), those requests did not pertain to the validity of the contract. Finally, the trial court's order dismissing the lis pendens and its entry of a judgment for Torcise on his counterclaims was tantamount to a holding that the lease-option contract was invalid. Therefore, the trial court erred in awarding damages based upon the liquidated damage clause within that invalid contract.
The amount of damages suffered by Torcise were not otherwise determinable based upon "an arithmetical calculation or by application of definite rules of law" and were, therefore, unliquidated. Bowman v. Kingsland Dev., Inc., 432 So.2d 660, 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). When a claim involves unliquidated damages "[a] defaulting party has a due process entitlement to notice and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Security Bank, N.A. v. BellSouth Advertising & Pub. Corp.
...671 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Gulf Maintenance & Supply, Inc.v. Barnett Bank, 543 So.2d 813, 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Buffington v. Torcise, 504 So.2d 490, 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); 33 Fla.Jur.2d Judgments and Decrees § 275 (1994). The setting of unliquidated damages without the required notice and......
-
Bennett v. Ward
...to be determined. Gulf Maintenance & Supply, Inc. v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 543 So.2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Buffington v. Torcise, 504 So.2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Attorney's fees, which were awarded here, have been held to comprise unliquidated damages. Asian Imports, Inc. v. Pep......
-
Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Sawh
...698 So.2d 254, 256 (Fla.1997) ; see also Williams v. Direct Dispensing, Inc., 630 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) ; Buffington v. Torcise, 504 So.2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).Cellular Warehouse, Inc. v. GH Cellular, LLC, 957 So.2d 662, 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) ; see also Rutshaw v. Arakas, 549 So.......
-
Wells Fargo Bank v. Sawh
...698 So. 2d 254, 256 (Fla. 1997); see alsoWilliams v. Direct Dispensing, Inc., 630 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Buffington v. Torcise, 504 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).Cellular Warehouse, Inc. v. GH Cellular, LLC, 957 So. 2d 662, 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); see also Rutshaw v. Arakas, 549 So......