Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

May 27, 2016 by admin

Civil procedure — Default — Relief from judgment — Error to deny rule 1.540(b) motion without evidentiary hearing where motion alleged, with sworn affidavits, that defendants did not receive notice of hearing on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in time to attend the hearing

41 Fla. L. Weekly D1236bTop of Form

Civil
procedure — Default — Relief from judgment — Error to deny rule 1.540(b)
motion without evidentiary hearing where motion alleged, with sworn affidavits,
that defendants did not receive notice of hearing on plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment in time to attend the hearing

JAMES I. JONES, SR. and ALEXANDRIA DIAZ, Appellants, v.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY AS A SUBROGEE OF LEE A. DAISE, Appellee.
4th District. Case No. 4D15-2585. May 25, 2016. Appeal of a non-final order
from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County;
Michael L. Gates, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE14-021796. Counsel: James I. Jones,
Sr. and Alexandria Diaz, Fort Lauderdale, pro se. No brief for appellee.

(CONNER, J.) James I. Jones, Sr. and Alexandria Diaz, the
defendants below, appeal an order denying their motion filed pursuant to rule
1.540(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. This Court has jurisdiction
pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(5), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. We reverse,
concluding the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion
without an evidentiary hearing.

Following a hearing, the trial court entered a final summary
judgment (not a default judgment) in favor of GEICO, awarding it the amount of
damages it sought, plus costs and interest.

The defendants filed a pro se “motion to set aside default
and motion for rehearing,” specifically invoking rule 1.540(b). They explained
that, through mishandling of their mail, they first received notice of the
hearing set for 8:45 a.m. on May 5 at about 7:40 a.m. on the date of the hearing,
and appeared at 9:15 a.m.1 At that point, the judge told them
the case could not be discussed without both parties present. They requested a
new hearing on the merits.

The defendants explained their mail had been delivered to a
neighbor, whose name and address they provided in the motion. Among their
attachments was the neighbor’s affidavit in which he stated that on May 5,
2015, he gave Diaz mail that was addressed to Diaz and to Jones, but was
misdelivered to his (the neighbor’s) mailbox, and he had been riding around
with their mail for about three weeks. Diaz immediately opened it and showed
the neighbor a notice of hearing scheduled for the same date (May 5, 2015).
Jones’s affidavit also stated that on May 5, 2015, the neighbor gave Diaz the
mail addressed to the defendants and, due to the late notice, he arrived late
to court around 9:15.

The trial court summarily denied the defendants’ motion,
without explanation.

An order ruling on a rule 1.540(b) motion is reviewed for
abuse of discretion. Schuman v. Int’l Consumer Corp., 50 So. 3d 75, 76
(Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

“A motion for relief from judgment should not be summarily
dismissed without an evidentiary hearing unless its allegations and
accompanying affidavits fail to allege ‘colorable entitlement’ to relief.” Id.
at 77 (quoting Schleger v. Stebelsky, 957 So. 2d 71, 73 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2007)).

The defendants argue that the trial court abused its
discretion in not vacating the judgment and giving them a chance to be heard.
The sworn affidavits attached to the rule 1.540 motion stated that the
defendants did not receive notice of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment
until the morning of the hearing, too late to arrive in time to attend the
hearing.

“Lack of proper notice that a party is applying to the court
for a final judgment is a classic reason for setting a final judgment aside.” Weber
v. Shea
, 742 So. 2d 443, 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also Taylor v.
Bowles
, 570 So. 2d 1093, 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (reversing an order
denying the appellant’s motion for relief from final judgment where the
defendant had no notice of the trial date); Barry v. Barry, 324 So. 2d
644, 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (reversing an order denying a motion to set aside
a final judgment of dissolution of marriage where the record clearly
demonstrated that the appellant did not receive notice of the final hearing).

In Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lyons, 622 So. 2d
621 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), one party moved for sanctions against the other for
actions taken during mediation. Id. at 622. The trial court granted a
hearing on the request for sanctions and served both parties with the order. Id.
The trial court imposed sanctions on Liberty at the hearing, at which Liberty
did not appear; Liberty moved for relief, claiming it did not receive notice of
the hearing. Id. The trial court denied the motion and the district
court reversed. Id. It explained, “Generally, a prior judgment, decree
or order must be set aside where there is excusable neglect in the form of a
litigant’s failure to receive notice of a pending hearing or trial.” Id.
The denial of receipt raised a fact issue which had to be resolved in an
evidentiary hearing. Id; accord Power v. Grow Grp., Inc., 697 So.
2d 1286, 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (reversing order denying motion to vacate
final summary judgment in appellee’s favor, in which appellant claimed she
received no notice of the hearing; trial court could not determine credibility
of appellant’s claim without evidentiary hearing).

Here, the defendants’ rule 1.540 motion alleged, with sworn
affidavits, that they did not receive notice of the hearing on GEICO’s motion
for summary judgment in time to attend the hearing. We reverse the order
denying their motion and remand for an evidentiary hearing on their claim that
they did not receive notice of the hearing in time to attend it.

Reversed and remanded. (CIKLIN, C.J., and FORST, J.,
concur.)

__________________

1Other than the notice of hearing,
the defendants do not specify what other items of mail they did not receive
until May 5.

* *
*

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982