Savela v. Fisher

Decision Date01 March 1985
Docket NumberNo. 84-1256,84-1256
Citation464 So.2d 240,10 Fla. L. Weekly 552
Parties10 Fla. L. Weekly 552 Jean E. SAVELA and Two Wickered Women of Naples, Inc., Appellants, v. James FISHER, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Richard E. McMahon, P.A., Marco Island, for appellants.

Jacob E. Colgrove, Naples, for appellee.

LEHAN, Judge.

Two defendants appeal from a final judgment entered against them in the sum of $15,000. They contend that the trial court erred in failing to set aside defaults entered against them. We reverse.

While the record and pleadings are not models of clarity, we have, in the interests of justice, made certain determinations as to what occurred.

On February 25, 1983, one day after the expiration of 20 days from the service of summonses on these defendants, plaintiff obtained entry of default by the clerk against them. Contrary to defendants' initial contentions to the trial court, their responses i.e., their motions directed to the complaint, had been untimely served as shown by the postmark dated February 25, 1983 P.M. On March 14, 1983, the two defendants filed a motion to set aside the defaults. Plaintiff thereafter filed a motion called Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which we shall treat as a motion for final default judgment. The trial court entered a judgment on the pleadings against defendants, which we shall treat as a final default judgment on liability. Subsequently the trial court entered the foregoing final judgment from which defendants appeal and which noted the prior entry of the judgment on the pleadings. We shall treat this final judgment as a denial of the motion to set aside the defaults.

Defendants were entitled to have the defaults set aside if they showed "both a legal excuse for failure to comply with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and a meritorious defense." Kapetanopoulos v. Herbert, 449 So.2d 947, 949 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), quoting from Westinghouse Elevator Co. v. DFS Construction Co., 438 So.2d 125, 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). We believe they have made the requisite showings in this case.

The motion to set aside the defaults alleged, in essence, that the failure to timely file responses resulted from the inadvertent failure of defendants' attorneys to perceive that the summonses served upon defendants had been served on February 4th, several days prior to the February 8th service of another summons in the same case upon a third defendant whom the attorneys also represented (and who was not in default). The later served summons on that third defendant was delivered to the attorneys before delivery of the summonses against these defendants involved in this appeal. When the summonses against these defendants were...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Miami-Dade County v. Coral Bay Section C
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 19 Marzo 2008
    ...v. Maldonado, 405 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); see North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, 143 So.2d 849 (Fla.1962); Savela v. Fisher, 464 So.2d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). As the court correctly summarized the law in Zimmerman v. Vinylgrain Industries of Jacksonville, Inc., 464 So.2d 1353 (Fla......
  • Rhines v. Rhines, 84-2555
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 4 Octubre 1985
    ...413 So.2d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), cited in the dissenting opinion in this case, as well as in contrast to the facts of Savela v. Fisher, 464 So.2d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), the husband's default was not attributable in any way to the actions or nonactions of an attorney. The husband, who has ......
  • S.B. Partners v. Holmes
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 6 Diciembre 1985
    ...Supply Co., 405 So.2d at 1347. Nor can we say that appellees have been substantially prejudiced by the delay. See Savela v. Fisher, 464 So.2d 240, 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Indeed, under these facts, we think it would be a gross abuse of discretion not to allow appellant to present its defens......
  • Kuehne & Nagel, Inc. v. Esser Intern., Inc., 84-2040
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 16 Abril 1985
    ...v. Maldonado, 405 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); see North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, 143 So.2d 849 (Fla.1962); Savela v. Fisher, 464 So.2d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). As the court correctly summarized the law in Zimmerman v. VinylGrain Industries of Jacksonville, Inc., 464 So.2d 1353 (Fla......
  • 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