Case ID: so2d_597/html/0972-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PIECO, INC., f/k/a Pieco Miami, Inc., Appellant, v. SUNSET AMOCO WEST, INC., Appellee.
    No. 91-2519.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    May 12, 1992.
    Corlett, Killian, Ober & Levi, and Love Phipps, Miami, for appellant.
    
      Krongold, Bass, Todd & Marks, and Deborah Marks, Miami, for appellee.
    Before HUBBART, BASKIN and COPE, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order denying Pieco, Inc.’s [Pieco] motion to set aside a default. Pieco met the requirements for vacating a default by: demonstrating excusable neglect for failing to respond to the complaint, Cinkat Transp., Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 596 So.2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Hialeah, Inc. v. Adams, 566 So.2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 576 So.2d 284 (Fla.1990); Okeechobee Imports, Inc. v. American Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Fla., 558 So.2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); asserting a meritorious defense in its proposed answer, Cinkat; Atlantic Asphalt & Equip. Co. v. Mairena, 578 So.2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Fortune Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 490 So.2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); and acting with reasonable promptness in moving to set aside the default. Cinkat; Atlantic Asphalt & Equip. Co.

Reversed and remanded.