General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Thornberry
| Decision Date | 21 December 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-1386,93-1386 |
| Citation | 629 So.2d 292 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D4 GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP., Appellant, v. James Bruce THORNBERRY and Pamela Thornberry, his wife, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Herzfeld and Rubin and Carolyn A. Pickard and Jeffrey B. Shapiro, Miami, for appellant.
Perse, P.A. & Ginsberg, P.A. and Edward A. Perse and Steven Rudin, Miami, for appellees.
Before NESBITT, COPE and LEVY, JJ.
General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC) appeals an order denying its motion to set aside a default. * We reverse.
Plaintiffs James Bruce Thornberry and Pamela Thornberry filed suit against GMAC for damages arising out of an automobile accident involving a GMAC-owned vehicle. Plaintiffs served the lawsuit on GMAC's registered agent, which forwarded the suit papers to GMAC's legal department. The legal department mistakenly forwarded the suit papers to GMAC's Miami office, instead of the New Jersey office which serviced this particular account. The Miami GMAC office telephoned the GMAC legal department to advise it of the mistake. Each party to the conversation mistakenly believed that the other party would notify the insurance carrier to provide a defense. Consequently, there was a delay in forwarding the papers to the insurance carrier and counsel for a defense.
On the 21st day after service of the complaint, the clerk entered a default on ex parte motion by plaintiffs' counsel. On the 30th day following service the mistake had been discovered and the suit papers placed in the hands of defense counsel. On the 33rd day counsel filed a motion to set aside default, supported by affidavits detailing the foregoing. Plainly, GMAC exercised due diligence to move to set aside the default. The trial court ruled, however, that GMAC had not shown excusable neglect. We disagree.
Under established precedent, a mis-routing of suit papers under circumstances like these has been held to constitute excusable neglect. See North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, 143 So.2d 849, 850 (Fla.1962); Atlantic Asphalt & Equipment Co. v. Mairena, 578 So.2d 292, 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Hialeah, Inc. v. Adams, 566 So.2d 350, 350-51 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 576 So.2d 284 (Fla.1990).
The plaintiffs also claim that GMAC committed a procedural error when it raised the affirmative defense of statute of limitations by motion to dismiss, rather than answering and raising it by affirmative defense. We disagree. Where, as here, the statute of limitations defense appears on the face of the complaint,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baumstein v. Sunrise Community, Inc., 98-1186.
...only in support of an affirmative defense, see Jelenc v. Draper, 678 So.2d 917 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Thornberry, 629 So.2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), and because of the rule that disputed questions should ordinarily first be considered and determined by the tr......
-
Alexander v. Suncoast Builders, Inc.
...695 So.2d 698 (Fla.1997); Khalaf v. City of Holly Hill, 652 So.2d 1246, 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Thornberry, 629 So.2d 292, 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Therefore, in ruling on a motion to dismiss, a trial court may only consider the allegations pled in the In......
-
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Gonzales, Case No. 2D17–3262
...case. See Levine, Zweibach, Davis, P.A. v. Levine, 734 So.2d 1191, 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ; compare Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Thornberry, 629 So.2d 292, 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) ("Where, as here, the statute of limitations defense appears on the face of the complaint, it is permissible......
-
Markowski v. Attel Bank Intern.
...the mailbox service operator established that the court's order was never received by the Defendant, see General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Thornberry, 629 So.2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Cinkat; Hialeah, Inc. v. Adams, 566 So.2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Okeechobee Imports, Inc. v. American Sa......
-
Is there a workaround to Florida’s inequitable treatment of middle-aged adults contesting paternity for the first time in inheritance cases?
...allegations as to Bivins’ paternity without reference to a declaration or other proof. See Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Thornberry, 629 So. 2d 292, 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Can the “marriage ceremony” exception get a plaintiff around the time bar for paternity actions? NO Under F.S. 732.1......