You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

NCR Corp. v. Cannon & Wolfe Lumber Co.

Citations: 501 So. 2d 157; 12 Fla. L. Weekly 329; 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6428Docket: BO-429, BO-29

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; January 22, 1987; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, examined an appeal by NCR Corporation challenging a nonfinal order that denied its motion to vacate a default judgment and addressed related orders concerning arbitration and liability adjudication. NCR argued that it did not receive the mandatory notice of the default application, as required by Rule 1.500(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, given its earlier participation in the proceedings. The court found in favor of NCR, reversing the denial of the motion to vacate the default judgment due to the lack of notice. Consequently, the court also vacated the order adjudicating liability, which was contingent upon the improperly entered default. However, the court affirmed the order compelling arbitration, finding no error in its issuance. The appellate court's decision resulted in a partial reversal and remand for further proceedings, with the concurrence of Judges Booth, Mills, and Thompson.

Legal Issues Addressed

Adjudication of Liability Based on Default

Application: The order adjudicating liability was vacated because it relied solely on the default judgment, which was improperly entered.

Reasoning: The court also vacated the order adjudicating liability, as it was based solely on the improperly entered default.

Compelling Arbitration

Application: The order compelling arbitration was determined to have been properly issued and was upheld by the court.

Reasoning: However, the order compelling arbitration was upheld without error.

Notice Requirement under Rule 1.500(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure

Application: The court found that NCR Corporation was entitled to notice of the default application due to its participation in the proceedings by serving a document.

Reasoning: The court reversed the denial of the motion to vacate the default judgment, citing a lack of notice to NCR of the default application, which is mandated by Rule 1.500(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

Vacating Default Judgments

Application: The court vacated the default judgment against NCR Corporation because the default was improperly entered without the required notice.

Reasoning: The court reversed the denial of the motion to vacate the default judgment, citing a lack of notice to NCR of the default application, which is mandated by Rule 1.500(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.