GAC Corp. v. Beach, 74--1051

Decision Date14 February 1975
Docket NumberNo. 74--1051,74--1051
Citation308 So.2d 550
PartiesGAC CORPORATION, Appellant, v. D. Eloise BEACH, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Daniel A. Carlton, of Dart, Dickinson, O'Riorden, Gibbons & Quale, Sarasota, for appellant.

F. Joseph McMackin, III, of Spingler & Allen, Naples, for appellee.

HOBSON, Judge.

Appellant appeals an order denying its motion to set aside a default judgment. Appellee filed a complaint against appellant and others reading as follows:

Plaintiff, D. ELOISE BEACH, by and through the undersigned Attorney, sues GAC CORPORATION, JACK THOMAS ROLAND, PAT GRIFFIN, and DOROTHY MARIE LARKIN, and alleges:

1. This is an action for damages which exceed $2,500.00.

2. That on or about 26 July 1969 at approximately 1:00 P.M., Plaintiff was a business invitee in an automobile owned and operated by Defendant, JACK THOMAS ROLAND, who was at all relevant times an employee, acting within the scope of his employment of defendant GAC CORPORATION.

3. That on the above stated day and the above mentioned time on SR S--858 3.5 miles north of SR--84, defendant DOROTHY MARIE LARKIN, did negligently operate the motor vehicle she was driving and caused it to collide with the automobile in which Plaintiff was riding.

4. As a result of defendant's conduct, Plaintiff has suffered severe limitation of the right shoulder and pain in the entire right arm.

5. Plaintiff has sustained medical expenses, loss of wages, and pain and suffering in an amount in excess of $2,500.00.

6. Plaintiff has had to employ legal counsel, the undersigned, for the purpose of obtaining compensation for the injuries sustained by her due to defendant's negligence.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for damages against defendants.

There is no dispute as to the service of process nor that appellant waited some eleven months after the default judgment was entered to file its motion to set aside said default judgment. Appellant contends that there is no allegation contained in the complaint which could form a legal basis for a judgment against it and, therefore, the trial court erred in not setting aside the default judgment entered against it.

In North American Accident Ins. Co. v. Moreland, 1910, 60 Fla. 153, 53 So. 635, our Supreme Court held at page 637:

A judgment by default properly entered against parties sui juris operates as an admission by the defendants of the truth of the definite and certain allegations and the fair inferences and conclusions of fact to be drawn from the allegations of the declaration. Conclusions of law, and facts not well pleaded, and forced inferences are not admitted by a default judgment. If the allegations and the fair inferences from the allegations state a cause of action in favor...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Abrams v. Paul
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 12, 1984
    ...the motion to vacate the default, its ruling thereon would, of course, be subject to review by this court. See e.g., GAC Corp. v. Beach, 308 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Bay Products Corp. v. Winters, 341 So.2d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). However, in the absence of jurisdictional or fundamenta......
  • Becerra v. Equity Imports, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 28, 1989
    ...Armored Servs. Corp., 496 So.2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Brumby v. Clearwater, 108 Fla. 633, 149 So. 203 (Fla.1933); GAC Corp. v. Beach, 308 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Because the defect is apparent from the face of the complaint this court is not precluded from ordering relief from the j......
  • Sunshine Sec. & Detective Agency v. Wells Fargo Armored Services Corp.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 28, 1986
    ...v. Gall, 484 So.2d 1286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Bay Products Corp. v. Winters, 341 So.2d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); GAC Corp. v. Beach, 308 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Second, the operative complaint herein alleges that an employee of the defendant Sunshine, while on the job, conspired with cert......
  • Southeast Land Developers v. All Fla. Site
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 12, 2010
    ...551 So.2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), and Ginsberg v. Lennar Fla. Holdings, Inc., 645 So.2d 490, 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)); GAC Corp. v. Beach, 308 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); see generally Hooters of America, Inc. v. Carolina Wings, Inc., 655 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (damages award barre......
  • 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