Legal Opinion

Hanrahan v. Hillard

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 4, 1984No. 83-1768Published

1Per curiam

In light of the unrebutted sworn showing of the defendant’s actions in attempted defense of the complaint, which we hold established that his failure to answer and defend formally and timely was the result of “excusable neglect,” see B.C. Builders Supply Co. v. Maldonado, 405 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Imperial Industries, Inc. v. Moore Pipe & Sprinkler Co., 261 So.2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), and the parties’ stipulation that meritorious defenses and due diligence had also been demonstrated, the order denying the motion to vacate the default and default judgment entered below was a gross…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. BC Builders Supply Co., Inc. v. MaldonadoDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981
  2. Imperial Industries, Inc. v. Moore Pipe & Sprinkler Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1972
  3. Anish v. TopiwalaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983

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

Powered by the Exa API