Case Name: DOCTOR'S HOSPITAL OF HOLLYWOOD, INC., Appellant, v. Hunter W. MADISON and Minnie W. Madison, his wife, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-06-09
Citations: 415 So. 2d 84
Docket Number: No. 81-472
Parties: DOCTOR’S HOSPITAL OF HOLLYWOOD, INC., Appellant, v. Hunter W. MADISON and Minnie W. Madison, his wife, Appellees.
Judges: WALDEN, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 415
Pages: 84–86

Head Matter:
DOCTOR’S HOSPITAL OF HOLLYWOOD, INC., Appellant, v. Hunter W. MADISON and Minnie W. Madison, his wife, Appellees.
No. 81-472.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
June 9, 1982.
Mottlau & Wakefield, P. A., and Mark Hicks of Daniels & Hicks, Miami, for appellant.
Rubin & Rubinchik, Hollywood, and Larry Klein, West Palm Beach, for appellees.

Opinion:
BERANEK, Judge.
This appeal concerns the denial of a motion to vacate a default. Appellant contends that it has demonstrated excusable neglect and a meritorious defense. It is the duty of the trial court to make the determination of whether or not the facts constitute excusable neglect. A trial court is vested with broad discretionary powers in this regard, and in order to reverse a court's ruling, there must be a showing of a gross abuse of discretion. Schwab & Company, Inc. v. Breezy Bay, Inc., 360 So.2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, 143 So.2d 849 (Fla.1962).
In the landmark decision of Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980), our Supreme Court issued guidelines for review of a judge's discretionary power. The court stated, "If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion. The discretionary ruling of the trial judge should be disturbed only when his decision fails to satisfy this test of reasonableness." In light of this definition of review, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, grossly or otherwise. Having reached this conclusion on the issue of excusable neglect, we need not reach the issue of a meritorious defense.
AFFIRMED.
WALDEN, J., concurs.
ANSTEAD, J., specially concurs with opinion.