THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee for the Certificate Holders CWABS INC., Asset

- Backed Certificates, Series 2006

- 23 , Appellant,

v. MICHAEL DEPIERO and JOYCE DEPIERO , Appellee s . IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CASE NO. 1D 1 5

- 3065

_____________________________/ Opinion filed December 16, 2015. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County

. Frederic A. Buttner , Judge

. Nicholas R. Cavallaro of Gilbert Garcia Group, P.A., Tampa , for Ap pellant. Thomas R. Pycraft, Jr., John J. Spence, David D. Naples, Jr., and Michael J. Pelkowski of Pycraft Law LLC, St. Augustine , for Appellee s .

PER CURIAM

. This is an appeal of an order denying Appellant’s motion to vacate a final judgment of dismissal without prejudice

. Appellant argues the trial court erred in2 denying the motion to vacate without conducting an evidentiary hearing or considering the appr opriate factors set forth in Kozel v. Ostendorf , 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993)

. We agree and reverse the order denying the motion to vacate. In its motion to vacate the dismissal, Appellant explained that counsel failed to appear at trial because an e mployee saved the trial notice to the wrong computer file

. The motion was supported by various documents and three sworn affidavits. Courts have consistently found excusable neglect where an attorney fails to appear at a hearing due to secretarial error. S ee Elliot v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC , 31
So. 3d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“Excusable neglect is found ‘where inaction results from clerical or secretarial error, reasonable misunderstanding, a system gone awry or any other of the foibles to which human na ture is heir.’”) ( quoting Somero v. Hendry Gen. Hosp. , 467 So. 2d 1103, 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)); Wilson v. Woodward , 602 So. 2d 547, 548

- 49 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (finding excusable neglect where secretary for the moving party’ s lawyer failed to calendar the hearing); see also J.J.K. Intern., Inc. v. Shivbaran , 985 So. 2d 66, 68

- 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (finding excusable neglect where lawyer’s failure to appear for hearing was due to error by secretary in marking the hearing “cancelled” on calendar). Because t he motion alleged a colorable claim for relief, Appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the motion. See Chancey v. Ch ancey , 88 0 So.
2 d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“ If a rule 1.540 motion alleges a colorable3 entitlement to relief, the circuit court shou ld conduct a limited evidentiary hearing on the motion”)

. The trial court’s order dismissing the action provided no written findings other than to state that Appella nt received notice of the trial and failed to appear.
F ailure to apply the Kozel factors c onstitutes reversible error and requires remand for application of the correct standard. See BACHome Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Ellison , 141 So. 3d 1290, 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) . The Court has explained that “[e]xpress findings are required to ensure that t he trial judge has consciously determined that the failure was more than a mistake, neglect, or inadvertence, and to assist the reviewing court to the extent the record is susceptible to more than one interpretation.” Ham v. Dunmire , 891 So. 2d 492, 496 (F la. 2004) ( citing Commonwealth Fed. Sav

. & Loan Ass ’ n v. Tubero , 569 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1990)); see also Smith v. City of Panama City , 951 So. 2d 959, 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
W e reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing and consideration of the Kozel factors

. REVERSED AND REMANDED

. LEWIS, SWANSON, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.