Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed March 30, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1746

Lower Tribunal No. 20-26030

________________

Armando Cardona, et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

FirstBank Puerto Rico, etc., et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Reemberto 

Diaz, Judge.

Robert C. Meyer, P.A., and Robert C. Meyer, for appellants.

Shutts & Bowen LLP, and Aliette D. Rodz and Jerel C. Dawson, for 

appellee FirstBank Puerto Rico.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ. 

EMAS, J.
2

INTRODUCTION

Armando Cardona, Sr., Armando Cardona, Jr., Maria Cardona, Zuyen 

Cardona, and CMA Corporation, the defendants below, appeal from a default 

foreclosure final judgment in favor of plaintiff, FirstBank Puerto Rico 

(“FirstBank”), as well as an order denying defendants’ subsequent motion to 

vacate same. We reverse and, for the reasons that follow, hold that the trial 

court erred in denying the motion to vacate the final judgment. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

FirstBank filed the instant foreclosure complaint, naming the Cardonas 

and CMA Corporation as defendants. The defendants did not answer the 

complaint but, on February 5, 2021, (prior to the date a response to the 

complaint was due1) defendants’ attorney, Robert C. Meyer, emailed a 

proposal for settlement to counsel for FirstBank. 

The subject line of defendants’ email read: “Proposal on []Bank Puerto 

Rico v. CMA and Cardonas Case No: 2020-026030-CA-01 Div. 30.” 

Attached to the email was a three-page, written proposal for settlement, 

which contained the reference “FirstBank Puerto Rico v. CMA and Cardonas,

Case No: 2020-026030-CA-01 Div 30.” 

1 The defendants were served on different dates, triggering different 

deadlines for the filing of a response. The earliest deadline for any defendant 

to respond to the complaint was February 8, 2021. 
3

The three-page settlement proposal indicated that defendants’ 

attorney was “writing this letter to attempt to resolve the above-described 

lawsuit filed by your client against my clients. This proposal is being brought 

on behalf of the Corporation as well as on behalf of the individuals.” The 

settlement letter went on to describe what counsel believed was his clients’ 

defense to the lawsuit but noted that his clients wished to “reconcile matters,” 

and thus offered certain payment terms in furtherance of the proposed 

settlement. 

Thereafter, several emails were exchanged between plaintiff’s attorney 

and defendants’ attorney, all of which clearly evidence that they were 

discussing—and attempting to resolve—the instant lawsuit between their 

clients. Indeed, at one point plaintiff’s attorney, in a response to an email by

defendants’ attorney, indicated that “the bank may consider a resolution of 

this type however, it would need to include payment of the attorney fees 

related to this matter.” All told, the two attorneys exchanged more than 

fifteen emails between February 5 and May 19, 2021.

Nevertheless, on May 18, 2021, FirstBank filed an ex parte motion for 

clerk’s default against defendants, alleging defendants “failed to file or serve 
4

any paper in this action.”2 The certificate of service on FirstBank’s motion 

for clerk’s default indicated service was sent to “all parties of record.” The 

motion for default was not sent to or served on defendants’ attorney, even 

though he and plaintiff’s attorney had been exchanging emails regarding this 

lawsuit since February. 

The clerk’s default was entered on June 2, 2021, after which FirstBank 

filed a motion for default final judgment. The notice of hearing was sent to 

the Cardonas, but again was not sent to or served upon defendants’ 

attorney. The court entered a default final judgment of foreclosure on June 

23, 2021. A copy of the judgment was mailed to the Cardonas, but was not 

sent to or served on defendants’ attorney. 

On July 9, 2021, defendants’ attorney filed an emergency motion to 

vacate the default and default final judgment, alleging that FirstBank failed 

to serve defendants’ attorney with a copy of the motion for default, the motion 

for default final judgment, the notices of hearing, or a copy of the subsequent 

default and default final judgment. The motion also alleged that the ex parte

default and default final judgment motions were granted without notice to 

defendants’ counsel, even though defendants’ counsel had been in contact 

2 On April 29, 2021, a clerk’s default had been entered against CMA Corp., 

which was also represented by attorney Meyer as stated in the emails sent 

by him to plaintiff’s attorney. 
5

with plaintiff’s counsel since February and that plaintiff sought the default and 

default final judgment while settlement negotiations were ongoing. Attached

to the motion were the previously described email exchanges between the 

parties’ counsel. Defendants’ attorney also filed an affidavit of Armando 

Cardona, Jr., and Zuyen Cardona, averring that neither of them received a 

notice of hearing on the motion for final judgment nor a copy of the final

judgment. 

In response to the motion to vacate, FirstBank asserted that

defendants were required to make a showing of excusable neglect, due 

diligence, and meritorious defense to establish their entitlement to have the 

judgment vacated, and that defendants had failed to make this requisite 

showing. FirstBank also argued that the communications from attorney 

Meyer did not constitute the filing of a “paper” under Rule 1.500 and therefore 

plaintiff was not required to provide Meyer with notice of the application for 

default (and default final judgment). 

On July 20, 2021, the court held a hearing. Counsel for FirstBank took 

the position that there were no negotiations between the parties, but only 

that “opposing counsel was trying to refinance the property.”3 Counsel for 

3 While defendants’ attorney Meyer did send a May 19, 2021, letter to 

plaintiff’s attorney asking whether “we can resolve the lawsuit with a 

refinance . . .”, this letter was dated one day after FirstBank had filed its 
6

FirstBank also took the position, as argued in its written response, that to be 

entitled to relief, defendants were required (but failed) to establish excusable 

neglect, a meritorious defense, and due diligence. The trial court denied the 

motion to vacate and found: “Defendants did not meet the elements to vacate 

a default. Specifically, Defendants did not assert a meritorious defense, as 

required to vacate a default.” This appeal followed. 

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

We begin with the well-established proposition that “under Florida law,

‘if there be any reasonable doubt in the matter of vacating a default, it should 

be resolved in favor of granting the application and allowing a trial upon the 

merits of the case.’” Contreras v. Stambul, LLC, 306 So. 3d 1143, 1144 (Fla. 

3d DCA 2020) (quoting State Bank of Eau Gallie v. Raymond, 138 So. 40, 

43 (Fla. 1931)). See also Cardet v. Resol. Tr. Corp., 563 So. 2d 167, 168 

(Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (“The purpose of the rule is to speed the action toward 

conclusion on the merits where possible, not to expedite litigation by ex parte 

actions and surprise”).

motion for clerk’s default against the Cardonas and after FirstBank had 

obtained a clerk’s default against CMA Corporation. A review of the email 

correspondence clearly evidences that Meyer advised plaintiff’s attorney he 

was representing all defendants in the instant lawsuit, and that his 

correspondence with plaintiff’s attorney was undertaken in an effort to 

resolve that litigation. 
7

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500 provides, in pertinent part: 

(a) By the Clerk. When a party against whom affirmative relief is 

sought has failed to file or serve any document in the action, the 

party seeking relief may have the clerk enter a default against 

the party failing to serve or file such document.

(b) By the Court. When a party against whom affirmative relief is 

sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by 

these rules or any applicable statute or any order of court, the 

court may enter a default against such party; provided that if such 

party has filed or served any document in the action, that party 

must be served with notice of the application for default.

. . .

(d) Setting aside Default. The court may set aside a default, and 

if a final judgment consequent thereon has been entered, the 

court may set it aside in accordance with rule 1.540(b).

Rule 1.500(a), which permits entry of an ex parte clerk's default only 

when a party “has failed to file or serve any document4 in the action,” “should 

be liberally construed in favor of deciding cases on the merits” rather than by 

default. Ace Funding Source, LLC v. A1 Transp. Network, Inc., 314 So. 3d 

726, 727 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (additional citations omitted). 

4 As this court noted in Ace Funding, 314 So. 3d at 727 n. 2, a previous 

version of rule 1.500(a) used the word “paper.” In 2016, the Florida Supreme 

Court amended this rule, replacing the word “paper” with “document”, in 

recognition of existing e-filing and e-service requirements in the Florida 

courts. In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 199 So. 3d 

867, 884 (Fla. 2016).
8

In furtherance of this policy in favor of deciding lawsuits on their merits, 

Florida courts construing rule 1.500(a) have defined the term “any document” 

broadly and liberally, “and [it] includes any written communication that 

informs the plaintiff of the defendant's intent to contest the claim.” Contreras,

306 So. 3d at 1145 (citations omitted). 

Therefore, “entry of a clerk’s ‘default as authorized under Florida Rule 

of Civil Procedure 1.500(a) is not appropriate in cases where the plaintiff 

knows that a defendant is represented by counsel who intends to 

assert matters in defense of the cause of action.’” Id. (quoting Gulf Maint.

& Supply, Inc. v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 543 So. 2d 813, 816 (Fla. 1st 

DCA 1989)) (emphasis added). In such circumstances, “the clerical default 

[i]s improvidently entered and the ensuing final judgment cannot stand.” Id. 

As we held in M.W. v. SPCP Grp. V, LLC, 163 So. 3d 518, 521 (Fla. 

3d DCA 2015):

In case after case, the Florida courts have held that a party 

cannot obtain an ex parte default when the party knows that the 

opposing side is represented by counsel and intends to defend 

on the merits.

See Apple Premium Fin. Serv. Co. v. Teacher’s Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of Am., 

727 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (reversing order denying motion to 

vacate default where pre-suit negotiations between counsel for both parties 

indicated plaintiff was aware defendant was being represented by counsel 
9

and intended to defend on the merits); Gulf Maint., 543 So. 2d at 816 

(reversing denial of motion to vacate clerk’s default and ensuing final 

judgment where plaintiff’s counsel “knew at all times that [attorney] was 

representing these defendants and intended to assert matters in defense of 

the action,” which required plaintiff to serve defendant’s attorney with notice 

of the application for default and present to the court for entry (rather than 

obtaining a clerk’s default); also noting: Florida’s “default procedure is not 

intended to discourage settlement discussions before an answer is filed, nor 

is it intended to allow a plaintiff to take undue advantage of a defendant who 

engages in settlement efforts”). See also Ole, Inc. v. Yariv, 566 So. 2d 812, 

814 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (trial court erred in denying motion to set aside 

default where “plaintiffs knew that [the defendant] intended to defend the 

lawsuit” and “[n]otwithstanding that knowledge, plaintiffs elected to apply ex 

parte for entry of a default by the clerk, and the case proceeded thereafter 

without notice to [the defendant]”); J.A.R., Inc. v. Universal Am. Realty Corp., 

485 So. 2d 467, 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (reversing trial court for failing to 

set aside default where “[a]lmost two weeks after defendants served their 

‘defense’ letter on plaintiff's counsel, plaintiff caused the clerk of the court to 

enter a default without notice to defendants”).
10

Applying this controlling precedent to the facts presented, we agree 

with defendants that counsel for FirstBank was made aware, before a 

responsive pleading from defendants was due, and before filing its motion 

for default and subsequent motion for default final judgment, that Meyer 

represented the defendants and intended to assert matters in defense of the 

action. As a result, the notice of application for default should have been 

served on Meyer and should have been presented to the trial court rather 

than in an ex parte manner to the clerk. As noted by the Fifth District in Gulf 

Maintenance: “A default is a procedural matter within the control of the 

attorney, so plaintiff's counsel should contact the attorney known to be 

representing a defendant to determine whether the latter intends to proceed 

in the matter before causing a default to be entered.” Gulf Maint., 543 So. 

2d at 816.

We further note that the trial court appeared to base its order denying 

the motion to vacate on the fact that defendants failed to assert a meritorious 

defense in support of their motion to vacate. However, and as this court has 

previously held, because the ex parte clerk’s default was improvidently 

entered, the trial court was required to vacate the clerk’s default and final 

judgment “without regard to whether the defendant can establish a 

meritorious defense or whether the defendant can demonstrate inadvertence 
11

or excusable neglect.” Ace Funding, 314 So. 3d at 728 (additional citations 

omitted). 

CONCLUSION

Given the nature and extent of the communications between counsel 

for plaintiff and counsel for defendants, plaintiff’s counsel was aware that 

defendants were represented by counsel and that defendants intended

through that counsel to assert matters in defense of the cause of action. 

Under these circumstances, plaintiff was not authorized to seek an ex parte 

default but was instead required to serve defendants’ attorney with a notice 

of the application for default and seek such relief with the court. The trial 

court erred in denying defendants’ motion to vacate the clerk’s default and

the default final judgment. We reverse and remand for the trial court to 

vacate both the default final judgment and the clerk’s default, and for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion.