HomeMy WebLinkAbout2284 fors would be issued and that this amount
would be given in 1979 and although I have
filled out and turned over to the Authority
the blanks, I have not heard anything from
thee. As recently as September 6, 1979, I
asked to meet with the Board. The Director
made a promise that two of us would get to-
gether and iron out our differences, but when
he met with his staff, he denied making such
a promise. I an therefore writing to ask
advice in these matters and to ask that you
make comparison to see who owes who."
Although this letter did not indicate that there was s
pending lawsuit between the parties, was not in the customary
style of an answer, and~had no case number, .the letter clearly
was an attempt to answer the summons and petition for removal of
tenant. On October 19, 1979, the County Judge, by letter, answered
the Appellantfs letter and advisel that he had no standing in this,
matter and apparently was unaware at that time of the pending law-
suit. The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the
trial Judge abused his discretion in failing to set aside the final
judgment by default. Rules 1.500 and 1.540, Rules of Civil Pro-
cedure, provide that upon motion and upon such terms as are just,
the Court may relieve a party from a final judgment for a mistake,
inadvertence or excusable neglect. In this case, the Appellant,
within the five days, did send a letter to the Judge who issued
the summons and this constituted an answer showing cause why he
should not be evicted. The form of the summons for removal of
the tenant which was served on the Appellant required a written
affidavit within-the five days. In an action for possession under
F.S. 83.59, it provides that the landlord is entitled to the
summary proceedings provided in F.S. 51.011. This summary proms
cedure statute provides that all defenses shall be contained in
Defendant's answer, which-shall be served within five daps after
service of process. There is no statutory procedure which re-
quires a written affidavit by Defendant nor is there any rule of
procedure which requires a written affidavit. The motion to set
aside the default judgment, quash the warrant of possession and
amend the answer was diligently filed within three days from the
final judgment by default.
Appellant was not represented by an attorney until the
motion to set aside default judgment, quash warrant of possession
and amend answer was filed. The failure of the Appellant to file
-2- e~332 ~~22~