KATHY MCGUIRE, PETITIONER,
v.
ERIC NELSON, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A landlord-tenant eviction dispute where the tenant failed to deposit disputed rent into court as required by statute, resulting in summary judgment for the landlord. The appellate court found the circuit court improperly dismissed the tenant's appeal without addressing the merits, including a constitutional challenge to the deposit requirement.
The circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law by denying the petitioner the opportunity to have her appeal heard on the merits. The appellate court did not reach the substantive merits but determined that the appeal raised justiciable issues that warranted consideration.
[1] A tenant's failure to deposit disputed rent into the court registry as required by statute may result in a landlord's eviction judgment.
[2] A constitutional challenge to a statute cannot be raised for the first time on appeal unless it constitutes fundamental error.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the circuit court improperly avoided its responsibility to review the county court's amended final judgment”
Establishes that the circuit court failed to fulfill its appellate duties by not addressing the merits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner was a tenant of the respondent. The respondent filed suit to evict the petitioner for non-payment of rent. The petitioner answered and …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Essential Requirements Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
[*43] COBB, Judge.
Petitioner is the tenant of respondent. Respondent filed suit to evict petitioner for non-payment of rent. Petitioner answered and raised several defenses alleging violations of the Landlord And Tenant Act. However, petitioner failed to deposit the disputed accrued rent into the registry of the court as required by section 83.60(2), Florida Statutes (1979). Therefore, the county court entered an amended final judgment allowing the respondent to take possession of the premises.
Petitioner appealed to the circuit court and raised two points on appeal. In the first point, petitioner contended that the county court erred in failing to entertain one of petitioner’s defenses which involved petitioner’s interpretation of section 83.-56(5), Florida Statutes (1979).
In the second point, petitioner contended, for the first time, that section 83.60(2), Florida Statutes (1979) denies access to the courts and is therefore unconstitutional. Respondent moved to dismiss the appeal as frivolous and moved for an attorney’s fee pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1979).
The reason advanced for dismissing the constitutional argument was that the argument could not be raised for the first time on appeal. Although the constitutional argument was raised for the first time on appeal, petitioner contended that the county court’s enforcement of the particular statute amounted to denial of access to the court which was fundamental error and could be raised for the first time on appeal.
The circuit court found that the appeal failed to raise any justiciable issue of law or fact and granted both motions.
Petitioner is now before us seeking review of the circuit court’s order. Since the circuit court was sitting as the appellate court, we cannot review the merits of the case as a second appeal. The petitioner must demonstrate to this court that the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction or departed from the essential requirements of the law in its order or proceedings. In this case, the merits were never reached. We think the circuit court improperly avoided its responsibility to review the county court’s amended final judgment. While we express no opinion on the correctness of the petitioner's argument, we do not believe that the appeal totally failed to raise a justiciable issue and we think that by denying the petitioner the opportunity to have her appeal heard on the merits, the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law.
QUASHED and REMANDED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Cnty. OF Volusia v. Transamerica Bus. Corp., 392 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…ions in this court. Appellant asks that we treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari if we determine that appellant has followed the wrong path, as we are empowered to do by Rule 9.040(c), Fla.R. App.P. Appellant cites McGuire v. Nelson, 388 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) and Pridgen v. Board of County Commissioners of Orange County, 389 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) as examples of inconsistent remedies which point to apparent conflict in our decisions. There is no conflict. In McGuire, there ha…
-
Trans-Continental Fin. Corp. v. Baxter, 402 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…ed to a second appeal and in order to prevail, it must demonstrate that the circuit court, acting in its appellate capacity, exceeded its jurisdiction or departed from the essential requirements of law in its order or proceedings. McGuire v. Nelson, 388 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). As in McGuire, the circuit court never reached the merits of the appeal because it failed to provide petitioner, as appellant, the opportunity to supplement the record before reaching its conclusion.1 By not giving the petitione…
-
State v. Wagner, 403 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…ischarging the defendants, the court departed from the essential [*1352] requirements of law, since by the application of this incorrect principle the State has been “effectively denied [its] day in court.” Jones, at 571. See also McGuire v. Nelson, 388 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The circuit court should have required a trial on the merits. The writ of certiorari is granted and the order of the circuit court affirming the order of the county court is quashed. ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur. COWART, J.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence