Summary
The First District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed an order denying a landlord’s motion for default judgment in a residential eviction action. The court held that the tenants’ pro se answer did not assert payment, contest the amount of rent, or constitute a motion to determine rent under section 83.60(2), Florida Statutes. The court remanded for entry of a default judgment and writ of possession on the eviction count and further proceedings on damages.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the tenants’ pro se answer constituted a motion to determine the amount of rent under section 83.60(2), Florida Statutes.
- Whether the landlord was entitled to an immediate default judgment for possession and a writ of possession because the tenants failed to pay rent into the court registry or move to determine the rent amount.
Holdings
- The trial court improperly construed the tenants’ answer as a motion to determine the amount of rent because the answer neither mentioned renewed eligibility for federal subsidies nor questioned the amount of rent owed.
- The landlord was entitled to an immediate default judgment for removal of the tenants and issuance of a writ of possession because the tenants did not assert payment, deposit the accrued rent into the court registry, or file a motion to determine the amount of rent.
Key quotations
“Failure of the tenant to pay the rent into the registry of the court or to file a motion to determine the amount of rent to be paid into the registry . . . constitutes an absolute waiver of the tenant’s defenses other than payment, and the landlord is entitled to an immediate default judgment for removal of the tenant with a writ of possession to issue without further notice or hearing thereon.” (2)
“While pro se filings are construed liberally, a court cannot substantively change the assertions raised therein, because a court cannot assist a pro se litigant to the detriment of the opposing party.” (3)
Factual background
The landlord alleged that the tenants’ lease expired on January 31, 2025, that it elected not to renew the lease because of material violations including insufficient rent payments and a disconnected water utility, and that the tenants failed to vacate after an eighty-four-day notice of nonrenewal. The tenants’ pro se answer disputed some allegations and offered explanations for nonpayment, including Borders’s hospitalization, but did not allege that rent had been paid or contest the amount owed. The tenants neither deposited accrued rent into the court registry nor filed a motion to determine the amount of rent.
Procedural history
Monticello Elderly Housing filed a two-count eviction and damages complaint against Borders and Kirksey. After being served, the tenants filed a pro se answer but did not allege payment, deposit rent into the court registry, or move to determine the amount of rent. The county court denied the landlord’s motion for default judgment after construing the answer as a pleading requiring a determination of rent. The First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
Reverse the order on appeal; remand for entry of a default judgment on Count I, entry of a writ of possession, and further proceedings on Count II for damages.