Pierce v. Anglin
Citation | 721 So.2d 781 |
Decision Date | 04 December 1998 |
Docket Number | No. 97-4458.,97-4458. |
Parties | Ida Thames PIERCE and John E. Soles, Appellant, v. Deborah ANGLIN, Appellees. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Stephen F. Bolton and James A. McGhee of Moore, Hill, Westmoreland, Hook & Bolton, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant.
Charles M. Daniels of Baker, Duke & Holman, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellees.
This cause is before us for review of a final judgment awarding damages to appellee for personal injuries she sustained when a passenger in a motor vehicle accident. The motor vehicle was driven by appellant John E. Soles, and owned by appellant Ida Thames Pierce. We reverse.
The record reflects that appellants failed to answer the complaint filed by plaintiff/appellee in March 1997. On August 13, 1997, appellee moved for entry of a default judgment, on grounds that both defendants/appellants had been served with the summons and complaint, and failed to answer within the time required by law. Also on August 13, 1997, appellee's counsel filed a notice indicating that the motion for default was scheduled to be heard by the trial court on October 6, 1997. The face of the notice was directed to Ida Thames Pierce, John E. Soles, and Sheila Mastrianna. The certificate of service reflects service on Pierce and Soles at what may be residential addresses, and service on Sheila Mastrianna at Allstate in Pensacola.
On the date of the hearing, October 6, 1997, appellee's counsel filed an affidavit regarding the damages allegedly sustained by appellee as a result of the motor vehicle accident. The affidavit stated that counsel had personal knowledge of the medical reports, medical bills, and the damages sustained by appellee, and indicated that appellee sustained damages in the amount of $100,276.82, and incurred suit costs in the amount of $109.50.
On October 15, 1997, the trial court entered final judgment in favor of plaintiff/appellee, awarding damages and costs in the amounts claimed in the affidavit. On November 5, 1997, counsel for appellants filed a notice of appearance.1 On November 12, 1997, defendants/appellants, through counsel, filed a notice of appeal of the final judgment.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500 governs the procedures for defaults and final judgments entered thereon. The applicable provisions of the rule state in part:
The procedure concerning notice for trial is set forth in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440, which provides in pertinent part:
In Bennett v. Continental Chemicals, Inc., 492 So.2d 724, 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), in an en banc opinion, this court announced a bright line rule that strict compliance with rule 1.440 was mandatory. Essentially, in Bennett, this court held that "because compliance with rule 1.440 is mandatory it is reversible error, when the aggrieved party does not appear or raises an objection to noncompliance with the rule, to compel that party to proceed with trial." See Parrish v. Dougherty, 505 So.2d 646, 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
.
A default...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
O'Neal v. Florida a & M University
...unliquidated is when a default has been entered. "A default admits a defendant's liability for liquidated damages," Pierce v. Anglin, 721 So.2d 781, 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), but not for unliquidated damages. See Watson v. Seat, 8 Fla. 446, 447-48 (1859); Anglin, 721 So.2d at 783; Asian Imps......
-
White v. Bombardier Corp.
...is entitled to notice of an order setting the matter for trial, and must be afforded an opportunity to defend." Pierce v. Anglin, 721 So.2d 781, 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); see also Fiera.com, Inc. v. DigiCast New Media Group, Inc., 837 So.2d 451, 452 (Fla. 3d DCA I conclude that, consistent w......
-
Mourning v. Ballast Nedam Const., Inc.
...de novo. In support of its position, Ballast cites Lauxmont Farms, Inc. v. Flavin, 514 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), Pierce v. Anglin, 721 So.2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), and Viets v. American Recruiters Enterprises, 922 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). We find these cases The underlying pr......
-
Ciprian-Escapa v. City of Orlando
...in the complaint. The affidavit of proof, however, cannot serve to liquidate the damages. See Rodriguez–Faro, 69 So.3d at 1099 ; Pierce, 721 So.2d at 781 ; Farm Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Thorn Lumber Co., 202 W.Va. 69, 501 S.E.2d 786, 791–92 (1998) (finding an affidavit of proof simply statin......
-
Chapter 1-4 Defaults
...v. Pepe, 633 So. 2d 551, 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (unpaid principal and interest constitute liquidated damages).[36] Pierce v. Anglin, 721 So. 2d 781, 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Asian Imports, Inc. v. Pepe, 633 So. 2d 551, 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Lauxmont Farms, Inc. v. Flavin, 514 So. 2d 113......
-
Chapter 1-4 Defaults
...v. Pepe, 633 So. 2d 551, 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (unpaid principal and interest constitute liquidated damages).[35] Pierce v. Anglin, 721 So. 2d 781, 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Asian Imports, Inc. v. Pepe, 633 So. 2d 551, 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Lauxmont Farms, Inc. v. Flavin, 514 So. 2d 113......