Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1992

Airmark Engines, Inc. v. Airpark Aviation, Inc.

Airmark Engines, Inc. v. Airpark Aviation, Inc.
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided April 29, 1992 · Farmer, Letts, Polen
599 So. 2d 1032; 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4746; 1992 WL 83901 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Airmark Engines, Inc. v. Airpark Aviation, Inc.

Dissenting Opinion

FARMER, Judge,

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 *10331982); and Yu v. Weaver, 364 So.2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). The usual form of this proof is an affidavit, but testimony at the hearing will also do.

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

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

POLEN, J., concurs. LETTS, J., concurs specially with opinion. FARMER, J., dissents with opinion.

Concurring Opinion

LETTS, Judge,

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.