Airmark Engines, Inc. v. Airpark Aviation, Inc.
Airmark Engines, Inc. v. Airpark Aviation, Inc.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
A defendant’s excuse for not responding timely to a validly served complaint must be established by proof, not by unsworn argument. Bil-Jax Inc. v. Williamson, 497 So.2d 1350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Gibraltar Service Corp. v. Lone and Associates Inc., 488 So.2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); C.E. Peters Landclearing Inc. v. Gossington, 487 So.2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 496 So.2d 142 (Fla. 1986); Hall v. Byington, 421 So.2d 817 (Fla. 4th DCA
Here, there was neither. I reach this conclusion because appellant says there was no testimony at the hearing on appel-lee’s motion to vacate the default final judgment, and the motion was unsworn. Appellee did not file any brief in this appeal, a failure which I take to be a concession of the accuracy of appellant’s account of the proceedings below.
A reversar is unavoidable.
Opinion of the Court
AFFIRMED.
Concurring Opinion
specially concurring.
I concur specially to comment on the dissent. I have never before seen nor heard that the failure to file a brief might be a confession of error. Were this so, every answer brief unaccompanied by a reply brief would result in invariable af-firmance. Surely the appellant must demonstrate error.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.