Rodriguez v. Falcones
The Third District reversed an order vacating a default final judgment under rule 1.540(b), holding the movant failed to present any facts supporting excusable neglect, due diligence, or a meritorious defense. Generalized assertions of COVID-19 pandemic business and family disruptions — unsupported by sworn facts — were insufficient, and a ten-week delay after notice of the default final judgment constituted lack of due diligence as a matter of law.
Key facts
- Rodriguez sued Falcones; the trial court entered a default final judgment against Falcones.
- Falcones moved under rule 1.540(b) to vacate the default final judgment, citing COVID-19 pandemic disruptions to business and family, but provided only generalized assertions without sworn supporting facts.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
The opinion draws a sharp, practically useful line between the lenient standard for setting aside an interlocutory clerk's default (where a general denial can suffice and ordinary abuse-of-discretion review applies) and… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.