Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
AMY FARIELLO HANSEN and DONALD F. HANSEN v. MDLV, LLC d/b/a ONE SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REALTY and THOMAS BOOTHE
Citation: Not availableDocket: 22-0397
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; November 2, 2022; Florida; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Appellants Amy and Donald Hansen, sellers, appealed a final order denying their motion to set aside a judicial default entered against them due to their failure to respond to an amended crossclaim by appellee Thomas Boothe, the buyer. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the sellers had actively defended the case and were not given an opportunity to be heard before the judicial default and final judgment were entered. The dispute involved a deposit related to a real estate contract, with the buyer filing a crossclaim for its return after an interpleader action was initiated by the escrow agent. Although the sellers' attorney had filed a notice of appearance and sought an extension to respond, the trial court granted the buyer's motion for judicial default without proper notice or a hearing. The sellers' verified motion to set aside the default was filed shortly after the default judgment was entered, but the trial court denied it, claiming insufficient facts for excusable neglect. On appeal, the sellers argued that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(b) required a hearing and notice because they had participated in the litigation, rendering the default and judgment void. The court agreed, citing precedent that a hearing was mandatory when a party has filed substantive documents in the action, and the lack of a hearing invalidated the default and judgment. A distinction was made between this case and prior rulings in Fierro v. Lewis and Picchi v. Barnett Bank, which clarified that a hearing on a motion for default is unnecessary when only a notice of appearance is filed. In the present case, however, the defendant filed substantive documents, including a motion to dismiss, prior to the default motion, warranting a hearing. Significant pre-trial communication between the parties further supported the need for a hearing. Citing Hendrix, the court noted that the trial court was obligated to provide a hearing when substantive papers were filed. The entry of default and the subsequent final judgment were deemed void due to a lack of opportunity for the defendant to be heard, as required by Rule 1.500(b). The court reversed the decision and remanded for a hearing on the motion for judicial default, emphasizing that improperly entered defaults necessitate setting aside final judgments regardless of a defendant's established neglect or defense. The ruling aligns with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(c), which states that an answer filed before default prevents such entry. The decision is not final until a timely motion for rehearing is resolved.