Bradley Vercosa and Superclean Restoration, LLC v. Claudia Fields, Craig Greene, MSG Built-Tech Construction Corporation and Andres R. Nunez
174 So. 3d 550
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Appellants (Vercosa and SuperClean) were defaulted on liability for failing to respond to a complaint; the complaint alleged unliquidated damages.
- The trial court scheduled a final hearing solely on damages at a specific time and location.
- Appellants appeared early at the scheduled location, then were told the hearing had been moved to another room.
- Appellants arrived at the judge’s chambers but were told the damages hearing had already occurred without them.
- The trial court entered a final judgment on damages and later denied appellants’ motions to vacate; appellants appealed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether final judgment is void for lack of notice of hearing location change | Fields: hearing notice was proper; judgment valid | Appellants: relocation of hearing without notice deprived them of opportunity to be heard | Judgment is void because appellants were denied notice of the changed location and thus opportunity to be heard (due process violation) |
| Whether movant must show excusable neglect or meritorious defense to set aside judgment | Fields: movant must satisfy Rule 1.540 standards | Appellants: if judgment is void no need to show excusable neglect or meritorious defense | Court: if judgment is void, Rule 1.540(b)(4) allows attack at any time; movant need not show excusable neglect or meritorious defense |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. Internet Billing Co., 882 So. 2d 533 (recognizing unliquidated damages require hearing on amount)
- Viets v. Am. Recruiters Enters., Inc., 922 So. 2d 1090 (due process violation renders judgment void)
- Tannenbaum v. Shea, 133 So. 3d 1056 (judgment void where proceedings violate notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Watson v. Watson, 583 So. 2d 410 (final judgment void where notice mailed to incorrect address)
- Rodriguez v. ALS Commercial Funding, LLC, 138 So. 3d 491 (vacating judgment where notice of hearing mailed to prior address)
- Sterling Factors Corp. v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n., 968 So. 2d 658 (definition of a void judgment)
- Mullne v. Sea-Tech Constr., Inc., 84 So. 3d 1247 (no need to show excusable neglect to attack a void judgment)