HomeMy WebLinkAbout0822 Default.
Appellees (who did not file a brief but were permitted to argueorally)
claim the motions were not "pleadings" as required by the lower Court's
order after denial of the motion to strike. Appellees also contend that
motions may not be filed seriatim under Rule 1. 140(g). While both of these
arguments may have some validity, the fact remains that Appellants were
filing defenses, appeared at the noticed hearing opposing the Appellees case
and seeking to vacate the Clerk's invalid Default, and were acrively defending
- the suit. Under such circumstances, entry of a D~fault both violated Rule
1. 500 and served no valid purpose. The Court could have denied the pending
motions to dismiss and quash as unauthorized under its prior order and the
rule and given Appellants a short day within which to file an Answer. The `
trial of a inodern day lawsuit is not a game between the lawyers in which
causes being acrively prosecuted or defended are won or lost upon prooedural
~ .
~ niceties. Cf. Coggins v. Barfield, 8 So 2d 9(Fl. 1942).
For the foregoing reasons, the Final Judgmern herein and the Defaults
~ . ~
i
which preceded it are vacated and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
Done in Stuart, Florida, this January o? , 1977.
• t
f
<
~
Copies furnished: ~
Vincent A. Lloyd, Esquire F~o ~N *~,~uEc
Richard D. Sneed, Jr. , Esquire it.~uC~t~o~M~r ~u?.
ROCER POITRA; L
CLEII~ CIIICIIIT COURT
RECORD YERIFIED
Ja~, 31 9 3~ AN'17 ~
_ ~
356365 ~
f
~ ~ ~