BRIDGE GOLDE,
v.
JUAN SANTANA,
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 Florida appellate court affirmed a lower court decision in an eviction action, holding that a tenant defending against eviction must comply with the mandatory statutory requirement to pay accrued and accruing rent into the court registry, and failure to do so constitutes an absolute waiver of the tenant's defenses.
A tenant defending against an eviction action must pay into the court registry either the amount of rent alleged to be due or the amount determined by the court, plus all rent accruing during the case's pendency. Failure to pay the rent into the court registry pursuant to court order constitutes an absolute waiver of the tenant's defenses and entitles the landlord to an immediate default for possession without further notice or hearing.
[1] A tenant defending against an eviction action must pay accrued rent into the court registry, as well as rent that accrues during the pendency of the proceeding, when due.
[2] Section 83.60(2) of the Florida Statutes mandates that a tenant interposing a defense other than payment in an eviction action must pay accrued rent into the court regist…
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“Section 83.60(2) is not discretionary; it compels a tenant defending against an eviction to pay into the court registry either (i) the amount of rent alleged to be due, or (ii) the amount of rent determined by the court, plus all rent that accrues during the case's pendency”
Establishes the mandatory nature of the rent payment requirement and identifies what must be paid into the court registry
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn an eviction action brought by the landlord against the tenant, the tenant interposed a defense other than payment of rent. The lower court issued a…
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 Action For Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See § 83.60(2), Fla. Stat. (2022) (“In an action by the landlord for possession of a dwelling unit, if the tenant interposes any defense other than payment, including, but not limited to, the defense of a defective 3-day notice, the tenant shall pay into the registry of the court the accrued rent as alleged in the complaint or as determined by the court and the rent that accrues during the pendency of the proceeding, when due”) (Emphasis added); 1560-1568 Drexel Ave., LLC v. Dalton, 320 So. 3d 965, 969 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“Section 83.60(2) is not discretionary; it compels a tenant defending against an eviction to pay into the court registry either (i) the amount of rent alleged to be due, or (ii) the amount of rent determined by the court, plus all rent that accrues during the case's pendency”) (citing First Hanover v. Vazquez, 848 So. 2d 1188, 1190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) and Stanley v. Quest Int'l Inv., Inc., 50 So. 3d 672, 673 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)).
See also 214 Main St. Corp. v. Tanksley, 947 So. 2d 490, 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“The statute does not allow for a procedure whereby a trial court may excuse the tenant's noncompliance with its prior order.
Therefore, we conclude that the trial court erred in setting aside the default and writ of possession based upon the finding that the late November payment was the result of excusable neglect”) (citing § 83.232(5), Fla. Stat. (2005)) (“Failure of the tenant to pay the rent into the court registry pursuant to court order
shall be deemed an absolute waiver of the tenant's defenses. In such case, the landlord is entitled to an immediate default for possession without further notice or hearing thereon.”)
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- 214 Main St. Corp. v. Tanksley, 947 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Sanchez v. State, 848 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Myron Alphesus Stanley, Jr. v. Quest Int'l Inv., Inc., 50 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Bridge Golde v. Santana (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)