Chigurupati v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co.

6 Citing cases

  1. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Andre

    377 So. 3d 1180 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024)

    The insurer’s alternative argument, for which we apply an abuse of discretion standard of review, is equally meritorious, because the insurer’s amended motion to set aside the default and default judgment satisfied the elements of due diligence, excusable neglect, and a meritorious defense. See Chigurupati v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 132 So. 3d 263, 265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) ("[W]e review an order denying a motion to vacate a default for an abuse of discretion."); Suntrust Mortg. v. Torrenga, 153 So. 3d 952, 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) ("A trial court’s determination on a motion for relief from judgment is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.") (citation omitted); Wolf v. Peter M. Habashy, P.A., 361 So. 3d 379, 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) ("To set aside a default final judgment, the trial court must find excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and due diligence in seeking relief.")

  2. Spencer v. Kelner

    No. 4D22-2276 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2023)

    Analysis "A trial court's determination on a motion for relief from judgment is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." Suntrust Mortg. v. Torrenga, 153 So.3d 952, 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (quoting SunTrust Bank v. Puleo, 76 So.3d 1037, 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)); see also Chigurupati v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 132 So.3d 263, 265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) ("[W]e review an order denying a motion to vacate a default for an abuse of discretion.").

  3. Rodriguez v. HSBC Bank U.S.

    352 So. 3d 8 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    We held that, while the service was sufficient to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant, the failure to strictly comply with the statutory requirements placed that jurisdiction into a "state of dormancy" during which the clerk did not have the authority to enter a default. Id. at 1127; see also Re-Emp. Servs., Ltd. v. Nat'l Loan Acquisitions Co., 969 So.2d 467, 471 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (stating that, "[w]hen there is an error or omission in the return of service, personal jurisdiction is suspended and it `lies dormant' until proper proof of valid service is submitted"); Chigurupati v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 132 So.3d 263, 265-66 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding that, even though the plaintiff eventually established proper service of process, a defect on the face of the return of service rendered jurisdiction dormant, and the clerk lacked the authority to enter a default during the period of dormancy). Here, because the original return of service was defective on its face, any personal jurisdiction over Rodriguez lay dormant and the court lacked the authority to enter the default, and the default judgment, regardless of whether the bank later filed a facially valid return of service or otherwise proved that service was valid.

  4. Modway, Inc. v. OJ Commerce, LLC

    No. 4D21-1147 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    "Proper service of process is indispensable for the court to obtain personal jurisdiction over a defendant," Nat'l Safety Assocs., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 799 So.2d 316, 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), and when service is not proper, "personal jurisdiction is suspended and it 'lies dormant' until proper proof of valid service is submitted," Chigurupati v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 132 So.3d 263, 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Re-Emp't Servs., Ltd. v. Nat'l Loan Acquisitions Co., 969 So.2d 467, 471 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)). Sierra v. U.S. Bank Tr., N.A. as Tr. for LSF9 Master Participation Tr., 299 So.3d 402, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).

  5. Sierra v. U.S. Bank Tr., N.A.

    299 So. 3d 402 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    A challenge to service of process relates to the court's personal jurisdiction over the defendant. "Proper service of process is indispensable for the court to obtain personal jurisdiction over a defendant," Nat'l Safety Assocs., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 799 So. 2d 316, 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), and when service is not proper, "personal jurisdiction is suspended and it ‘lies dormant’ until proper proof of valid service is submitted," Chigurupati v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co. , 132 So. 3d 263, 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Re-Emp't Servs., Ltd. v. Nat'l Loan Acquisitions Co. , 969 So. 2d 467, 471 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) ). A defensive motion that challenges personal jurisdiction and that does not seek affirmative relief does not subject the movant to the court's jurisdiction.

  6. Mortgage v. Torrenga

    153 So. 3d 952 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 11 times
    Finding excusable neglect where, due to a clerical or administrative error, an attorney failed to calendar the trial date into her internal case management system and thus failed to appear at trial

    “A trial court's determination on a motion for relief from judgment is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” SunTrust Bank v. Puleo, 76 So.3d 1037, 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); see also Chigurupati v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 132 So.3d 263, 265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“[W]e review an order denying a motion to vacate a default for an abuse of discretion.”). Analysis