## Facts

- Christian Herranz sued Roberto Siam in Florida circuit court.
- Siam failed to timely respond, and a default was entered against him.
- Siam moved to set aside the default and separately moved to strike the complaint as a sham under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.150.
- The hearing on the Rule 1.150 motion was set on the court’s motion calendar; the notice and re-notice stated only the date and time and did not state that testimony would be taken or that the hearing would be evidentiary.
- At the motion calendar hearing, the trial court took testimony, granted the motion to strike the complaint as a sham, and also granted the motion to set aside the default.
- Herranz appealed both rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by striking the complaint as a sham under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.150 when the hearing was not properly noticed as an evidentiary hearing.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by setting aside the default.

## Decision

- Affirmed the order setting aside the default, finding no abuse of discretion.
- Reversed the order striking the complaint as a sham and remanded.
- Held that Rule 1.150 requires an evidentiary hearing and due process requires specific advance notice when testimony will be taken; motion calendar notice that does not disclose an evidentiary proceeding is inadequate.

## Legal Principles

- A motion to strike a pleading as a sham under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.150 requires the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing and take evidence from the parties.
- Because testimony is contemplated, parties must receive specific notice that an evidentiary hearing will occur, with sufficient time to prepare and present contrary evidence; disputed testimony at routine motion calendar without such notice is improper.
- Striking a pleading as a sham is an extraordinary remedy permitted only when the pleading’s falsity clearly and indisputably appears, and the pleading is inherently false and known to be false when made.
- Orders setting aside defaults are reviewed for abuse of discretion; absent a clear showing of arbitrariness or unreasonableness, the ruling will be affirmed.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld the trial court’s discretionary decision to set aside the default, but reversed the sham-pleading dismissal because the court conducted a testimonial evidentiary proceeding without proper notice, contrary to Rule 1.150’s requirements and basic due process.


Herranz v. Siam, 2 So. 3d 1105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)