Cinkat Transp., Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co.

Decision Date31 March 1992
Docket NumberNo. 91-2551,91-2551
Parties17 Fla. L. Weekly D849 CINKAT TRANSPORTATION, INC., Appellant, v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, a/s/o Combined Carriers Co., Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Pyszka, Kessler, Massey, Weldon, Catri, Holton & Douberley and Edward D. Schuster, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Myron M. Samole and Helene L. Daniel, Miami, for appellee.

Before BASKIN, LEVY and GERSTEN, JJ.

BASKIN, Judge.

Cinkat Transportation, Inc. [Cinkat], appeals an order denying its motion to vacate a default final judgment. We reverse.

Cinkat has met the three requirements for vacating a default. First, Cinkat demonstrated excusable neglect in failing to respond to plaintiff's complaint. Cinkat asserted, through its motion to vacate and attached affidavit, that its employee inadvertently misfiled and misplaced the summons and complaint, excusable neglect sufficient to set aside a default judgment. Hialeah, Inc. v. Adams, 566 So.2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 576 So.2d 284 (Fla.1990); Okeechobee Imports, Inc. v. American Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Fla., 558 So.2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Second, Cinkat asserted a meritorious defense to plaintiff's claim in its proposed answer setting out its affirmative defenses, which was attached to its motion to vacate. Atlantic Asphalt & Equip. Co. v. Mairena, 578 So.2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Fortune Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 490 So.2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Finally, Cinkat acted with due diligence in filing its motion to vacate. Although Cinkat did not file a motion to vacate for over two months after entry of the default final judgment, Cinkat's attorney promptly contacted plaintiff's counsel upon learning of the entry of default, placing plaintiff on notice that Cinkat would contest the default. Atlantic Asphalt & Equip. Co., 578 So.2d at 293. The delay in filing the motion to vacate was caused by an unfortunate series of miscommunications between Cinkat and its counsel. Atlantic Asphalt & Equip. Co. In considering a motion to set aside a default, courts must evaluate both the extent of the delay as well as the reasons for the delay. Apolaro v. Falcon, 566 So.2d 815, 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Cinkat's delay, under the circumstances of this case, was not unreasonable; the default should have been vacated.

Defaults should be set aside under appropriate circumstances; a strong preference exists in the law for cases to be determined on their merits. North Shore Hosp.,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Security Bank, N.A. v. BellSouth Advertising & Pub. Corp.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 24, 1996
    ...on the merits and the severity of a default, where defenses on the merits are precluded. See, e.g., Cinkat Transp., Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 596 So.2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Espinosa v. Racki, 324 So.2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The bank's failure to offer any record evidence of excusa......
  • ALLSTATE FLORIDIAN INS. v. RONCO INVENT.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 3, 2004
    ...the view that the appellees have not demonstrated excusable neglect. The dissent contends that Cinkat Transportation, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 596 So.2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), Atlantic Asphalt & Equipment Co. v. Mairena, 578 So.2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), and Apolaro, 566 So.2d 815, e......
  • Miami-Dade County v. Coral Bay Section C
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 19, 2008
    ...849, 852-53 (Fla.1962); Markowski v. Attel Bank Int'l, 701 So.2d [416] at 417 [(Fla. 3d DCA 1997)]; Cinkat Transp., Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 596 So.2d 746, 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Thus, "`* * * if there be any reasonable doubt in the matter [of vacating a default], it should be resolved i......
  • Martinez v. Fraxedas
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 21, 1996
    ...lawsuits on the merits. See, e.g., North Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So.2d 849, 853 (Fla.1962); Cinkat Transp., Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 596 So.2d 746, 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Apolaro v. Falcon, 566 So.2d 815, 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Ole, Inc. v. Yariv, 566 So.2d 812, 815 (Fla. 3......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT