Background
KSV CaaStle Holdings, L.P. and KSV CaaStle Holdings II, L.P. sued Christine Hunsicker over investments in CaaStle, alleging fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, securities violations, and unjust enrichment. Hunsicker was personally served but did not file a responsive pleading within 20 days.
More than a month after the response deadline, Hunsicker’s attorney emailed plaintiffs’ counsel that he represented her, would be appearing shortly, and requested 14 days to respond. Counsel subsequently conferred twice. Plaintiffs nevertheless applied twice for a clerk’s default without serving Hunsicker or her lawyer with notice. The clerk entered default, and the circuit court entered a default final judgment exceeding $51 million. The circuit court denied Hunsicker’s motion to vacate.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District reversed. It held that Hunsicker’s lawyer’s email was a written communication qualifying as a “document” under the then-effective version of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500 because it informed opposing counsel that Hunsicker intended to defend. That communication required notice before a default could be sought.
The court also held that notice was independently required because plaintiffs had actual knowledge that Hunsicker was represented and intended to defend. Counsel’s lack of a formal appearance did not eliminate that obligation. Obtaining a clerk’s default without notice violated Rule 1.500 and due process, making both the clerk’s default and the derivative default final judgment void. The court remanded with instructions to vacate them.
Key Takeaways
- An attorney’s email announcing representation, an intention to appear, and a request for time to respond can trigger Rule 1.500’s notice protections.
- A plaintiff aware that a defendant has counsel who intends to defend must provide notice before pursuing a default.
- When a default judgment is void for lack of due process, the movant need not show excusable neglect or a meritorious defense.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces Florida courts’ preference for resolving disputes on the merits rather than through ex parte defaults. Counsel seeking a default must account for informal written communications and actual knowledge of defense representation, not merely whether counsel has formally appeared in the docket.