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.

Hurd v. Al Springer Roofing, Inc.

Citations: 526 So. 2d 784; 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1455; 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2558; 1988 WL 62014Docket: No. 88-776

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; June 21, 1988; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The defendant appeals the denial of his motion to vacate a clerk’s default in a mechanic’s lien foreclosure proceeding. The clerk’s default was entered due to the defendant’s failure to file a timely response. The following day, the defendant’s counsel submitted a motion to vacate the default, along with an answer containing affirmative defenses and a counterclaim. The motion included an affidavit stating that the delay was due to the counsel’s incapacitation from a sprained back. At the hearing, the affidavit was unchallenged. The presented pleadings and exhibits indicated a plausible defense of accord and satisfaction. The court referenced established precedents that support vacating a default when excusable neglect and a meritorious defense are demonstrated. The order denying the motion to vacate is reversed, and the case is directed to vacate the default.

Legal Issues Addressed

Excusable Neglect in Default Proceedings

Application: The court considered the counsel's incapacitation due to a sprained back as excusable neglect, warranting the vacation of the default.

Reasoning: The motion included an affidavit stating that the delay was due to the counsel’s incapacitation from a sprained back.

Meritorious Defense Requirement

Application: The court found that the defendant's pleadings and exhibits provided a plausible defense of accord and satisfaction, satisfying the requirement for a meritorious defense.

Reasoning: The presented pleadings and exhibits indicated a plausible defense of accord and satisfaction.

Reversing Default Judgments

Application: The appellate court reversed the denial of the motion to vacate the default, directing that the default be vacated based on excusable neglect and a meritorious defense.

Reasoning: The order denying the motion to vacate is reversed, and the case is directed to vacate the default.