TOO LATE TO UNDO? WHAT EAST COAST RECOVERY V. HOLMES TEACHES US ABOUT FIGHTING OLD JUDGMENTS
Miami’s legal scene just got a reminder: timing and evidence are everything when challenging a judgment. In East Coast Recovery, Inc. v. Patricia Holmes, 8/20/25. Florida’s Third DCA reversed a trial court’s decision to vacate a 2006 Default Judgment—nearly two decades after it was entered.
The Backstory
Patricia Holmes was sued in 2005 for credit card debt. She didn’t respond, and a Default Judgment was entered in 2006. Fast forward to 2024: Holmes moves to vacate the Judgment, claiming she was never served and only found out after her bank account was garnished.
The trial court agreed and voided the Judgment. But the appellate court wasn’t having it.
The Reversal
The Third DCA said:
• The trial court applied the wrong version of Florida Statute 48.21. In 2006, a signature on the proof of service of process was not required. In 2011. the Legislature added the signature requirement.
• Holmes didn’t offer clear and convincing evidence that she wasn’t served.
• The original return of service showed personal service, and her sporadic participation over the years undermined her claim of ignorance.
Strategic Takeaways
• Procedural precision matters. Courts won’t bend rules for sympathy or delay.
• Return of service is powerful. Unless you can prove it’s false, it’s presumed valid.
• Participation = awareness. If you’ve shown up—even sporadically—you’ll struggle to argue you were in the dark.
Why This Case Matters
If you are a consumer facing a surprise Judgment—or a creditor defending one—this case is a blueprint for what works and what doesn’t. It’s also a reminder that legal strategy isn’t just about facts—it’s about timing, optics, and knowing which version of the rulebook and statutes the court is using!
