Legal Opinion

Peterson v. Lake Surprise II Condominium Assoc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided July 31, 2013No. 3D13-352PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

We find there is clear error in each of the two post-final default judgment of foreclosure orders challenged on appeal:

1) There is no lawful basis for the order granting a Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(1) motion for relief from the default judgment, which was based upon the mortgagee’s conscious and deliberate — but sadly mistaken — decision, made contrary to advice of counsel, that it was not necessary to answer the complaint. A conscious decision not to comply with the requirements of the law cannot be “excusable neglect” under the rule or any other equivalent requirement.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Geer v. JacobsenDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2004
  2. United States v. Marcus HooperCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
  3. LAZCAR INTERN., INC. v. CaraballoDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2007
  4. Cicoria v. GaziDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Suntrust Mortgage v. Dean Calvin Torrenga and Kathleen Ann TorrengaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2014
  2. Emerald Coast Utilities Authority v. Bear Marcus Pointe, LLC a Florida limited etc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2017
  3. Hovercraft of South Florida, LLC v. ReynoldsDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2017
  4. Emerald Coast Utilities Authority v. Bear Marcus Pointe, LLC a Florida limited etc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2017
  5. Pierre Seneque v. Florida Peninsula Insurance CompanyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2026

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API