343 So.3d 1249
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2022Background
- Landlord Bimini Properties sued tenant Puff or Sip Hookah Lounge for two months’ unpaid rent; tenant counterclaimed for breach of contract and asserted rent was not due.
- Tenant moved under § 83.60(2), Fla. Stat., asking the court to determine the amount of rent to be deposited into the registry; the trial court ordered the tenant to deposit $10,700.
- Tenant failed to pay the ordered amount by the deadline; the trial court entered a default final judgment and a writ of possession under § 83.232(1),(5).
- Tenant sought a stay, citing inability to contact counsel and alleged landlord breaches (repairs/alterations); the trial court entered a stay of the writ of possession.
- Appeals were consolidated: tenant appealed the default judgment (but conceded the statutory requirement for eviction and did not contest the entry of default); landlord petitioned to quash the stay of the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Landlord) | Defendant's Argument (Tenant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was default final judgment proper after tenant failed to deposit ordered rent? | Statute mandates that failure to deposit is an absolute waiver of defenses and entitles landlord to immediate default for possession. | Tenant conceded the trial court was required to enter eviction and did not contest the default. | Affirmed: default final judgment is proper. |
| Could the trial court stay the writ of possession despite the tenant’s failure to deposit? | No; § 83.232(5) imposes a non‑discretionary duty to issue writ of possession; stay is improper. | Equitable reasons (inability to reach counsel; landlord breached repair obligations) justify a temporary stay. | Quashed stay: court had no discretion to stay the writ; landlord entitled to possession. |
| What appellate procedure and standard apply to an order staying possession? | Treat the appeal as a certiorari petition; orders staying proceedings are reviewable by certiorari for departures from essential requirements causing irreparable harm. | (Implicit) The stay was permissible and should not be summarily quashed. | Treat notice of appeal as certiorari; applied certiorari standard and found departure from essential requirements with no adequate appellate remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stetson Mgmt. Co. v. Fiddler’s Elbow, Inc., 18 So. 3d 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (failure to deposit required rent mandates immediate default for possession; trial court lacked discretion to stay).
- Courthouse Tower, Ltd. v. Manzini & Assocs., 683 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (trial court’s duty to issue writ of possession under statute is ministerial).
- Park Adult Residential Facility, Inc. v. Dan Designs, Inc., 36 So. 3d 811 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (tenant’s reasons for failing to deposit do not permit deviation from statutory remedy).
- Bezl Ltd., LLC v. Raymond Off. Plaza, LLC, 313 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (reaffirming mandatory nature of § 83.232(5) remedy).
- Super Prods., LLC v. Intracoastal Env’t, LLC, 252 So. 3d 329 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (orders staying proceedings are reviewable by certiorari).
- State v. Hernandez, 278 So. 3d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (articulates certiorari standard: departure from essential requirements producing material injury without adequate appellate remedy).