Case Name: MATHEWS CORPORATION, Appellant, v. GREEN'S POOL SERVICE, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1990-07-10
Citations: 584 So. 2d 1006
Docket Number: No. 89-2789
Parties: MATHEWS CORPORATION, Appellant, v. GREEN’S POOL SERVICE, Appellee.
Judges: Before HUBBART, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 584
Pages: 1006–1007

Head Matter:
MATHEWS CORPORATION, Appellant, v. GREEN’S POOL SERVICE, Appellee.
No. 89-2789.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
July 10, 1990.
On Rehearing Sept. 24, 1991.
Maxwell G. Battle, Jr. and Michael De-Loach, Dunedin, for appellant.
Timothy H. Kenney, Palm Beach, for ap-pellee.
Before HUBBART, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Mathews Corporation from a trial court order denying its motion filed pursuant to Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.540 seeking to set aside an adverse final judgment entered upon a clerk's default. We affirm based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.
First, there is no merit to the defendant's point on appeal that the final judgment must be set aside because the clerk's default was erroneously entered due to an alleged defect in the subject default order. This point was not raised in the defendant's motion to set aside the final judgment and does not rise to the level of a fundamental error. Moreover, we read the clerk's default entered "against the above-named Defendant" to mean the defendant stated in the caption to the motion for default, namely, the defendant Mathews Corporation.
Second, there is no merit to the defendant's point on appeal that the defendant was otherwise entitled to have the final judgment set aside based on excusable neglect. Although arguably excusable neglect was shown below, the defendant's motion to vacate and affidavits in support thereof contain only conclusory assertions that defendant has a meritorious defense to plaintiff's complaint and no other sworn proofs were submitted establishing, as required, such defense. Moreover, defendant's unsworn proposed answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaim were largely a general denial without sufficient allegation of supporting ultimate facts and do not, in our view, satisfy the requirement that a meritorious defense must be shown in order to set aside a final judgment under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540 based on excusable neglect. See Napco Paints, Inc. v. LaPorte (U.S.), Inc., 490 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Westinghouse Elevator Co. v. DFS Constr. Co., 438 So.2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Tremblay v. March, 378 So.2d 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 389 So.2d 1116 (Fla.1980); Bay Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Carroll, 352 So.2d 900 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. dismissed, 364 So.2d 881 (Fla.1978). But cf. Kapetanopoulos v. Herbert, 449 So.2d 947 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (meritorious defense shown where motion and affidavits contained ultimate facts supporting proposed affirmative defenses).
Third, the affidavit of John Raines attached to and incorporated by the complaint establishes the monies due and owing in this case, and, upon the defendant's default to the complaint, was sufficient to support the final judgment in the same amount plus interest. The defendant's point on appeal contesting the amount of the final judgment is therefore rejected.
Finally, the last point on appeal has no merit and is unsupported by any authority. The order under review is therefore, in all respects,
Affirmed.