Arnold v. Massebeau

4 Citing cases

  1. Gibson Trust, Inc. v. Office of the Attorney General

    883 So. 2d 379 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 14 times
    Concluding excusable neglect found where uncontroverted evidence established misunderstanding concerning whether extension of time to answer complaint had been granted

    In any event, the proposed amended answer attached to the motion for rehearing was more than a general denial, which would also be sufficient to warrant reversal. See City of Hollywood v. Cordasco, 575 So.2d 301, 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (reversing based on failure to grant motion for rehearing); Arnold v. Massebeau, 493 So.2d 91 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (same). For the reasons stated above, we reverse and remand with directions to vacate the default judgment and allow further proceedings on the merits.

  2. Hunter v. Dennies Contracting Company

    693 So. 2d 615 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that it was incumbent upon the enjoined to party to prove “some change of circumstance” that would justify dissolution despite the fact that the movant made “a persuasive argument that the evidence submitted at the initial temporary injunction hearing was legally insufficient to support issuance of the temporary injunction”

    At all times prior to entry of the final order terminating an action, the trial court has inherent authority to reconsider any of its nonfinal rulings, and, if it deems it appropriate, to alter or retract them. However, the court is not required to exercise that authority, and its decisions whether to do so generally are not reviewable. Bettez v. City of Miami, 510 So.2d 1242, 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Arnold v. Massebeau, 493 So.2d 91, 92 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). The rule differs with respect to a temporary injunction issued without prior notice, in which case the trial court must hear the enjoined party's motion to dissolve.

  3. Latin Am. Prop. v. Italian Palace

    596 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 3 times

    As this court stated in City of Hollywood v. Cordasco, 575 So.2d 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), "[a]lthough a legally insufficient motion to vacate a default cannot be corrected as a matter of right by a motion for reconsideration or hearing, a trial court does have the inherent discretionary power to reconsider any order entered prior to the rendition of final judgment in the cause." Id. at 302 (citing Arnold v. Massebeau, 493 So.2d 91 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)) (emphasis in original). In the instant case, the trial court exercised its discretion and conducted a hearing on Latin American's amended motion to vacate the default.

  4. City of Hollywood v. Cordasco

    575 So. 2d 301 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 7 times
    Reversing based on failure to grant motion for rehearing

    Although a legally insufficient motion to vacate a default cannot be corrected as a matter of right by a motion for reconsideration or hearing, a trial court does have the inherent discretionary power to reconsider any order entered prior to the rendition of final judgment in the cause. Arnold v. Massebeau, 493 So.2d 91 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). In the instant case, the trial court correctly exercised its discretionary power and ruled on the motion for rehearing.