Ciprian-Escapa v. City of Orlando
172 So. 3d 485
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- City of Orlando sued Ines and Eduardo Ciprian for subrogated workers’ compensation benefits and property damage after Eduardo caused a car accident injuring two officers.
- Complaint sought specific sums for each officer but described amounts as "to date," suggesting they could increase; property damage claim ($4,000) was definite.
- Defendants’ answers were stricken and default entered as a sanction; City moved for final judgment and filed a verified affidavit calculating higher workers’ compensation totals.
- The trial court held an ex parte proceeding (notice served by counsel, not by court under rule 1.440) and entered final judgment fixing damages; court later amended judgment to add the $4,000 property claim.
- Defendants filed a pro se rule 1.540(b) motion to vacate; trial court denied relief. Defendants appealed, raising (among other points) that unliquidated damages required a court-noticed, 30-day evidentiary hearing under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unliquidated damages may be fixed without court-noticed, 30-day evidentiary hearing under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(c) | City sought damages via motion and affidavit; argued final judgment appropriate after ex parte proceeding | Appellants argued damages were unliquidated and they were entitled to court-issued notice, 30 days, and an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing before damages were fixed | Court held damages alleged for workers’ compensation were unliquidated; failure to comply with Rule 1.440(c) deprived defendants of due process as to unliquidated amounts; judgment vacated as to those damages and remanded for proper proceedings |
| Whether the judgment was void for other defects (e.g., lack of jurisdiction, vague complaint) | City contended issues were not preserved and opposed relief as untimely | Appellants argued judgment void for vagueness and lack of jurisdiction | Court rejected appellants’ other arguments; rule 1.540 relief allowed as to void portion (unliquidated damages); judgment remains valid as to liquidated property-damage award |
Key Cases Cited
- Lauxmont Farms, Inc. v. Flavin, 514 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (strict compliance with rule 1.440 required)
- Talbot v. Rosenbaum, 142 So.3d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (setting unliquidated damages without required procedures is fundamental error)
- Cellular Warehouse, Inc. v. GH Cellular, 957 So.2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (judgment void as to unliquidated damages when notice and hearing requirements are not met)
- Minkoff v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp., 103 So.3d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (defaulting party entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard on unliquidated damages)
- Bowman v. Kingsland Dev., Inc., 432 So.2d 660 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (definition of liquidated damages: amount can be determined with exactness from pleadings or law)
- Rodriguez-Faro v. M. Escarda Contractor, Inc., 69 So.3d 1097 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (judgment entered without required notice/hearing is void and subject to collateral attack)
- BOYI, LLC v. Premiere Am. Bank, N.A., 127 So.3d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (judgment valid as to liquidated damages but void as to unliquidated damages)
- Hill v. Murphy, 872 So.2d 919 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (allegation of damages "in excess of" a figure is not sufficiently definite to be liquidated)
- Dunkley Stucco, Inc. v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 751 So.2d 723 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (attorney’s fees and costs are unliquidated)