Facts Z Roofing & Waterproofing, Inc. (plaintiff/appellee) sued Arthur J. Morrison (defendant/appellant) in Miami-Dade County Court (Lower Tribunal No. 20-11804 CC). Before any default was entered, Morrison filed four responsive pleadings. A default final judgment was nevertheless entered against him. Morrison moved to vacate the default judgment; the trial court denied the motion. Morrison appealed the non-final order denying vacatur. Jurisdiction was proper under Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5).
Issue Did the trial court err in denying Morrison’s motion to vacate the default judgment when he had already filed multiple responsive pleadings prior to entry of the default?
Rule Under Florida law, a trial court may not enter a default (or default final judgment) against a defendant when responsive pleadings are already on file unless the court first strikes those pleadings or expressly finds them insufficient.
- Azure-Moore Invs. LLC v. Hoyen, 300 So. 3d 1268, 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
- Singh v. Kumar, 234 So. 3d 1, 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
- Carraway v. Common, 677 So. 2d 51, 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
Analysis Morrison placed four responsive pleadings on the record before default was entered. Z Roofing argued on appeal that those pleadings were “insufficient,” but the trial court never struck them and never made any finding of insufficiency. Because the trial court took neither required step, it lacked authority to enter the default or the default final judgment. The appellate court therefore held that the trial court erred both in entering the default and in denying the motion to vacate.
Conclusion Reversed and remanded. The Third District Court of Appeal held that the default final judgment was improperly entered and that the trial court’s denial of Morrison’s motion to vacate must be vacated.
The court opinion can be found here: https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/852188/opinion/220720_DC13_11022022_101935_i.pdf