KITCHEN DESIGN CABINETS INC v. BENTLEY (2021)

Appellant appeals from the Order of Final Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff, entered in response to Appellee's Motion for Final Judgment by Default. Appellant alleges that the trial court erred in denying its motion to vacate the clerk's default. We affirm.

Among other arguments, Appellant asserts that its failure to timely respond to the complaint was due to excusable neglect. “Excusable neglect is found ‘where inaction results from clerical or secretarial error, reasonable misunderstanding, a system gone awry or any other of the foibles to which human nature is heir.’ ” Emerald Coast Utils. Auth. v. Bear Marcus Pointe, LLC, 227 So. 3d 752, 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (citations omitted). But, “[t]he law requires certain diligence of those subject to it, and this diligence cannot be lightly excused.” Id. (citation omitted).

“[T]he determination of whether particular conduct constitutes excusable neglect ․ is a factual one, to be decided by the trial judge.” Bruce J. Berman & Peter D. Webster 4 Fla. Prac., Civil Procedure § 1.540:6 (2021). This makes it “the duty of the trial court, not the appellate court, to make the determination whether the facts constitute excusable neglect[.]” Church v. Strickland, 382 So. 2d 419, 420 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (citation omitted). Accordingly, “the facts ․ are of singular importance in determining whether relief should be granted.” Benefit Admin. Sys., LLC v. W. Kendall Baptist Hosp., Inc., 274 So. 3d 480, 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (citation omitted).

Here, the trial court “weighed the evidence, made credibility determinations,” and concluded that Appellant had no entitlement to relief. Id. Without any transcripts, we have no means by which to review the trial court's resolution of these important factual issues. Thus, Appellant has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“[T]he appellate court can not [sic] properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal.”).

Affirmed.

Jay, J.

B.L. Thomas and Winokur, JJ., concur.