Legal Opinion · Concurrence

818 Asset Management, Inc. v. Neiman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 28, 2009No. 3D08-97Published

1Concurrence

WELLS, J.,

(specially concurring).

I concur in the affirmance of the trial court’s order denying 818 Asset Management, LLC’s Rule 1.540 motion to set aside a default judgment. I find no merit to the company’s claim that it had not been properly served with process, and thus conclude that no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated. See H & F Tires, L.P. v. D. Gladis Co., Inc. 981 So.2d 647, 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“[T]he standard of review for an order denying a motion to vacate a default judgment is abuse of discretion.” (quoting Top Dollar Pawn Too, Inc. v. King, 861 So.2d 1264, 1265 (Fla.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Top Dollar Pawn Too, Inc. v. KingDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2003
  2. All Mobile Video, Inc. v. WhitenerDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000
  3. H & F TIRES, LP v. D. Gladis Co., Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2008

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API