Affirmed. LPP Mortgage Ltd. v. Bank of Am., N.A., 826 So. 2d 462, 463–64 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“Whether relief should be granted pursuant to Rule 1.540 is a fact specific question and the trial courts ruling should not be disturbed on appeal absent a gross abuse of discretion.”); Somero v. Hendry Gen. Hosp., 467 So. 2d 1103, 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (“[W]here 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, then upon timely application accompanied by a reasonable and credible explanation the matter should be permitted to be heard on the merits.”); Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Coral Bay Section C Homeowners Assn, Inc., 979 So. 2d 318, 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“Florida has a long-standing policy in favor of deciding lawsuits on their merits.”); Lloyds Underwriters At London v. Ruby, Inc., 801 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“In implementing this policy, ‘if there be any reasonable doubt in the matter [of vacating a default], it should be resolved in favor of granting the application and allowing a trial upon the merits.’ ” (quoting N. Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849, 852–53 (Fla. 1962)).
PER CURIAM.