Markowski v. Attel Bank Intern.
| Decision Date | 12 November 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-3526,96-3526 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2574 Michael J. MARKOWSKI, Appellant, v. ATTEL BANK INTERNATIONAL, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Timothy P. Stickney and Howard T. Sutter, Key Biscayne, for appellant.
Whisenand & Turner and James D. Whisenand, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and LEVY and FLETCHER, JJ.
The defendant in an action to enforce a promissory note appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to vacate a default judgment and final judgment which were entered against him. For the following reasons, we reverse.
On June 18, 1992, the Appellant, Michael J. Markowski, (hereinafter "the Defendant"), executed a promissory note in favor of the Appellee, Attel Bank International, (hereinafter, "the Bank"). On July 12, 1996, the Bank filed a complaint alleging that the Defendant defaulted on the note. The Bank's complaint sought to enforce the note and collect upon it. The Defendant, acting pro se, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that he received no consideration for the note. On August 20, 1996, the trial court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss and ordered that the Defendant file an answer to the complaint within twenty days. The Defendant did not file an answer. He was unaware of the trial court's order because the mailbox service he was using erred in collecting his mail and he had not received a copy of the order.
On September 13, 1996, the Bank moved for the entry of a default judgment and for the entry of final judgment. The Bank's motions were heard at a hearing on September 25, 1996. The Bank's motions were granted and a default order and final judgment were entered.
On October 11, 1996, the Defendant filed a motion to set aside the default. In that motion, the Defendant argued that his failure to submit an answer, as directed by the trial court, was attributable to excusable neglect based on the problems with his mailbox service. The Defendant submitted the sworn affidavit of the operator of a franchise business that rented the Defendant a mailbox. That affidavit reflects that the Defendant diligently called the business to inquire if any mail from the court had arrived and that the mailbox service informed him that no mail had arrived.
The Defendant's motion to set aside the default was set down for a hearing on October 22, 1996. The Defendant appeared at the courthouse on the morning of October 22, 1996 to attend. However, the Defendant noticed that his case did not appear on the posted list of those cases on the calendar for that day. The Defendant approached the trial judge's bailiff to inquire about the motion calendar. He was told by the bailiff that his case had not made the calendar. Consequently, the Defendant left the courthouse. Counsel for the Bank, however, was able to appear before the trial court judge, on that date, and submit a proposed order denying the Defendant's motion to set aside the default. The trial court judge signed the order, thereby denying the Defendant's motion to set aside the default. The trial court's order reflects that the trial court judge added the following hand-written language to the proposed order submitted by the Bank: "The Defendant did not show for [the] hearing he set."
On October 29, 1996, the Defendant filed a second motion to set aside the default and submitted a notice of hearing for that motion. A hearing on that motion took place on December 11, 1996. At that hearing, the Defendant explained that he tried to appear at the first hearing, but was told that the case did not make the calendar. The trial court judge said, "Now, I don't know who you spoke to, but we heard the matter that morning and a default was granted because it was your hearing, you set it and you didn't show." The trial court judge asked his bailiff to retrieve and examine the motion calendar for October 22, 1996. The bailiff reported that the Defendant's case did not appear on the motion calendar for October 22, 1996. The trial court entered its second order denying the investor's motion to set aside the default. This appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zuchaer v. Peninsula Condo. Ass'n Inc.
...counsel neglected to timely follow through after receiving suit papers due to serious family illness); Markowski v. Attel Bank Int'l, 701 So. 2d 416, 417–18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (finding excusable neglect demonstrated where sworn testimony reflected appellant failed to receive court order due......
-
Gables Club v. Gables Condominium and Club
...and Gables Club has not alleged any prejudice by their failure to move more expeditiously than they did. See Markowski v. Attel Bank Intern., 701 So.2d 416, 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)(holding that defendant acted with due diligence when he filed a motion to vacate "as soon as he became aware of......
-
APPLE PREMIUM FINANCE v. TEACHERS INS.
...to set aside the default, and that the defendant has made the necessary showing of meritorious defenses. See Markowski v. Attel Bank Int'l, 701 So.2d 416, 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). ...
-
Markowski v. ATTEL BANK INTERN., LTD., 3D98-3336.
...The lower court subsequently entered an Order of Default in Final Judgment, which this Court reversed. See Markowski v. Attel Bank Int'l, 701 So.2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Subsequent to Markowski's filing of an Answer and Affirmative Defenses, and the denial of motions for summary judgment ......