Sencion v. Medula Network , 250 So. 3d 838 ( 2018 )

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed July 5, 2018.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D17-532
Lower Tribunal No. 16-12697
________________
Felix Sencion, etc., et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
Medula Network, LLC,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Samantha Ruiz-
Cohen, Judge.
Tom Regnier Appeals, P.A., and Thomas Regnier (Sunrise), for appellants.
Sodhi Spoont PLLC, and Eric M. Sodhi and Joshua L. Spoont, for appellee.
Before LAGOA, LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ.
LOGUE, J.
Felix Sencion, Mundial Sports Network, and the Mundial Group, Inc.
(collectively “Sencion”), seek review of the trial court’s judgment in favor of
Medula Network, LLC entered after default. The record demonstrates that Medula
mailed several critical motions and notices, including those relating to the default,
to the wrong mailing address. Because Sencion demonstrated excusable neglect, a
meritorious defense, and due diligence, the trial court abused its discretion when it
denied Sencion’s motion to vacate the court’s default. Accordingly, we reverse.
Background
In 2016, Medula filed suit against Sencion seeking payment for services
rendered. Medula served Sencion at 28 East 28th Street, New York. Sencion
responded by filing a letter with the court that claimed most of the money had
already been paid. Medula then served Sencion by mail with a motion for clerk’s
default, an amended motion for court’s default, and a notice of hearing for the
amended motion for court’s default. Rather than sending these documents to the
address where Sencion was served, however, Medula mailed the motion and
notices to Sencion’s former address at 167 Madison Avenue, Suite 603, New York.
Sencion did not appear at the hearing and a default was entered against him.
Sencion later reviewed the court docket and discovered the default. He filed a
motion to vacate. In the affidavit in support, he testified that the motions and
notices had been sent to a former address rather than his current address and he had
no notice of the motion or hearing. Meanwhile, Medula moved for final summary
judgment but again mailed the motion and notice to the wrong address. Sencion
2
again did not appear at that hearing and the trial court entered a judgment for
Medula. That same day, Medula moved to amend the judgment to include the
proper 28th Street address. Approximately one week later, Sencion filed a motion
to vacate the judgment. The motion to vacate and the motion for amended final
summary judgment were both heard at the same time. The trial court denied
Sencion’s motion and entered the amended final summary judgment. This appeal
followed.
Analysis
The trial court’s denial of the motion to vacate the default judgment in this
case is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Lloyd’s Underwriter’s at London v.
Ruby, Inc., 801 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“An order denying a motion
to vacate a default is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.”). But
“[w]hen it comes to vacating defaults, Florida has a long and proud tradition of
favoring adjudicating cases on the merits and setting aside defaults.” M.W. v.
SPCP Group, LLC, 163 So. 3d 518, 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). See Miami-Dade
Cnty. v. Coral Bay Section C Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 979 So. 2d 318, 323 (Fla.
3d DCA 2008) (“Florida has a long-standing policy in favor of deciding lawsuits
on their merits.”) (citation omitted); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ladner, 740 So. 2d 42, 43
(Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (“The longstanding policy in Florida is one of liberality
toward vacating defaults, and any reasonable doubt with regard to setting aside a
3
default should be resolved in favor of vacating the default and allowing trial on the
merits.”) (citing North Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849, 852-53 (Fla.
1962)).
In order to be granted relief from a default, a party “must show excusable
neglect, a meritorious defense, and due diligence in seeking relief after learning of
the default.” Allstate, 740 So. 2d at 43. Sencion satisfied each of these prongs.
Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500, the court may enter a default
“[w]hen a party against whom affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or
otherwise defend as provided by these rules.” However, “if such party has filed or
served any document in the action, that party must be served with notice of the
application for default.” Id. Here, the crucial motions and notices were sent to the
wrong address, as established by the certificates of service. In his sworn affidavit,
Sencion testified that he had not received the amended motion for default, the
corresponding notice of hearing, or the court’s default order. Under these facts,
Sencion demonstrated excusable neglect. Days v. Days, 655 So. 2d 1302, 1303
(Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“Generally, a prior judgment, decree or order must be set
aside where there is excusable neglect in the form of a litigant’s failure to receive
notice of a pending hearing or trial.”) (quotation omitted).
Sencion also established a meritorious defense. In both his letter filed with
the court and in his affidavit, Sencion asserted that most of the money claimed by
4
Medula had already been paid. Lastly, Sencion exercised due diligence in
discovering the default and timely filing motions to vacate.
Because of the preference for adjudicating cases on the merits, and
Sencion’s establishment of excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and due
diligence, we hold that the trial court erred by not vacating the default. Miami-
Dade Cnty., 979 So. 2d at 323 (“Keeping in mind the admonition that in case of
doubt, discretion is to be exercised in favor of vacating the default, we conclude
that the default should have been vacated in this matter.”) (citation omitted).
Reversed and remanded.
5