ARCHANA SINGH AND DENNIS MASSEY v. DEV T. KUMAR, 17-0241

Plaintiff sued Archana Singh and Dennis Massey on a five-count complaint arising from a $30,000 oral loan; defendants, through counsel, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Defense counsel moved to withdraw on the day the dismissal hearing was set; the court heard the motion, denied the jurisdictional dismissal, and ordered answers within 60 days to allow the defendants to retain new counsel, warning failure to answer would result in default.
On the first business day after the 60-day period expired, Plaintiff moved for default (served by U.S. Mail); the court entered default seven days later.
Defendants had earlier mailed pro se letters to the judge denying the complaint’s allegations; those letters were docketed by the clerk. After default, defendants filed motions to set aside/vacate the default and later counsel appeared and moved for rehearing and to vacate the default final judgment.
The court entered a default final judgment against the defendants, denied rehearing, and denied the motion to vacate; the court gave inconsistent statements about whether it considered the pro se letters.
Defendants appealed; the Fourth District reversed and remanded, concluding the trial court erred in multiple respects.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether entering a default final judgment while motions to set aside default/vacate were pending was proper	No specific response on appeal	Default judgment was improper because motions that could affect plaintiff’s right to proceed were pending	Court reversed: entering final default while dispositive motions were pending was error as a matter of law
Whether default final judgment as a sanction required an explicit finding of willfulness	No specific response on appeal	If judgment was a sanction, court must make an explicit willfulness finding	Court reversed: sanction-based dismissal/default requires explicit finding of willful noncompliance (Tubero)
Whether pro se letters mailed to the judge could be treated as filed pleadings/answers preventing default	Implicitly contended defendants filed nothing	Letters were filed by mailing to the court and should be treated as answers or at least rejected with notice before default	Court reversed: pro se letters mailed to the court were proper filings under the rules and court erred by entering default without giving notice of rejection or striking them
Whether court’s inconsistent statements about considering letters cured error	Not addressed	Inconsistency and lack of formal action deprived defendants of required notice	Court found error: mere statement that letters were "considered" without formal acceptance or rejection and without ruling on pending motions insufficient

Punta Gorda Ready Mixed Concrete, Inc. v. Green Manor Constr. Co., 166 So.2d 889 (Fla. 1964) (court may not enter default judgment while a pending motion could affect right to proceed)
Vacation Escape, Inc. v. Michigan Nat. Bank, 735 So.2d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (favorable ruling on a motion to set aside default would affect right to seek final default judgment)
Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 1990) (dismissal/sanction as punishment requires explicit finding of willful noncompliance)
Cardiosonx Labs., Inc. v. Aguadilla Med. Services, Inc., 100 So.3d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA) (procedural limitations on entering default judgments)
Lakeview Auto Sales v. Lott, 753 So.2d 723 (Fla. 2d DCA) (default judgment jurisdictional and procedural considerations)
Goodman v. Joffe, 57 So.3d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA) (procedural due process issues related to default)
Greenwood v. Nicklaus, 527 So.2d 964 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (a pro se letter denying claims can preclude entry of a clerk’s default)
Kidder v. Hess, 481 So.2d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (pro se letter denying allegations should be treated as an answer)
Cobb v. Trammell, 74 So. 697 (Fla. 1917) (early authority on defaults and motions affecting rights)
Dudley v. White, 31 So. 830 (Fla. 1901) (early authority on defaults and motions affecting rights)