EDUARDO ALFONSO, ET AL.

v.

MICHAEL MAIURI

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed March 5, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D24-0579 Lower Tribunal No. 24-17863-CC-26

Eduardo Alfonso, et al., Appellants, vs. Michael Maiuri, Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Lawrence

D. King, Judge.

Legal Services of Greater Miami, Kathryn Mesa, and Jeffrey M. Hearne, for appellants.

Michael Maiuri, in proper person.

Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES and MILLER, JJ.

FERNANDEZ, J.

2

Eduardo Alfonso and Jannette Garcia (“the Tenants”), appeal the final judgment of eviction entered in favor of Michael Maiuri (“the Landlord”). Because the trial court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the Tenants’ motion to determine rent, we reverse the final judgment and remand for further proceedings. Due to concerns about the condition of the property, the Tenants filed a complaint with Code Enforcement and sent a rent withholding letter, pursuant to section 83.60(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2023), notifying the Landlord of the repairs needed to the property and the Landlord’s failure to comply. The Tenants assert that despite no repairs being made, the Tenants claim that they paid rent through December 2023. Ultimately, the Tenants withheld January’s rent.

However, on January 15, 2024, the Landlord offered to apply $3,000.00 of their $4,800.00 security deposit towards January’s rent if the Tenants would agree to move out at the end of the month: If you want to move out by the end of the month January 31, 2024 would be glad to let you use the $3000.00 As requested by the Landlord, the Tenants sent the Landlord a copy of their lease at their new rental.

3

Despite the alleged agreement, on January 29, 2024, the Landlord filed an eviction complaint alleging the Tenants nonpayment of January’s rent.

On February 12, 2024, the Tenants timely filed a pro se Answer and a Motion to Determine Rent. In their Answer, the Tenants asserted several defenses, including payment based upon the agreement with the Landlord, the Tenants’ rent withholding based upon the Landlord’s failure to maintain the premises, and retaliation for reporting the Landlord to code enforcement and requesting repairs. In the motion to determine rent, the Tenants claimed that they disagreed with the amount the Landlord demanded in the complaint and requested for the trial court to determine the amount of rent to be deposited. The Tenants did not explicitly ask for an evidentiary hearing in their pro se motion, but it is implied given the fact that they presented evidence and requested a rent determination. The Tenants detailed the Landlord’s agreement to apply $3,000.00 of the security deposit to January’s rent and the rent withholding letter the Tenants sent to the Landlord. Afterward, the Landlord filed a pro se motion to strike the answer, affidavit of costs, non-payment of rent, non-military affidavit, and motion for default alleging that the Tenants failed to serve any paper. 4

On February 22, 2024, without first holding a hearing, the Court entered an Order Striking Defendants’ Answer and an Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Determine Rent, stating: Defendants’ Motion to Determine Rent is

DENIED.

Respectfully, Defendants’ [sic] have failed to set forth reasonable grounds for the relief requested. Defendants’ [sic] have not placed the full amount of the rent monies in dispute into the Court Registry, and/or presented any evidence of payment of the disputed rental amounts set forth in the Complaint. See Chapter 83.60 (2), Fla. Stat. (2023).

Stanley v. Quest International Investment, Inc., 50 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Hanover v. Vasquez, 848 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).

That same day, the Court entered a Final Judgment for Eviction awarding possession to the Landlord and $285.00 in court costs. The Tenants vacated the property and appealed the final judgment. “Section 83.60(2)’s requirements are at issue, and we review de novo matters of statutory interpretation.” Joerger v. Lake Alfred Place, LLC, 398 So. 3d 464, 465 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024) (citing Stanley v. Quest Int'l Inv., Inc., 50 So. 3d 672, 673 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)).

The applicable statute is as follows:

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. The clerk shall notify the tenant of such

5

requirement in the summons. 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 within 5 days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, after the date of service of process 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.

§ 83.60(2), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added).

A trial court typically disposes of a motion to determine rent in one of two ways: (1) the court sets an expedited evidentiary hearing and issues an order setting the rent to be deposited; or (2) the court strikes the motion as procedurally barred (usually based on the motion of the landlord pointing out statutory or procedural infirmities).

Axen v. Poah Cutler Manor, LLC, 323 So. 3d 800, 801 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA

2021); see also Kaufman v. High Seas, LLC, 383 So. 3d 509, 512 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2024).

Even though the Tenants, appearing pro se, did not explicitly request a hearing in their motion to determine rent, the Tenants were requesting a factual and legal determination that would be effectuated by an evidentiary hearing, the standard way of disposing of such motions. In denying the motion, the trial court stated: “Respectfully, Defendants’ [sic] have failed to set forth reasonable grounds for the relief requested. Defendants’ [sic] have not placed the full amount of the rent monies in dispute into the Court Registry, and/or presented any evidence of payment of the disputed rental

6

amounts set forth in the Complaint.” The trial court’s reasoning contradicts the plain language of the statue, which states in relevant part, “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 . . . .” § 83.60(2), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added).

The Tenants were not required to pay the rent monies into the registry because they filed a motion to determine rent. Given the disputed facts evidenced by the text messages, in which the Landlord offered the option of paying $3,000.00 in rent from the deposit amount that the Tenants accepted, the Tenants presented sufficient evidence to warrant a hearing on the issue.1 See Kaufman, 383 So. 3d at 512 (“He timely moved to determine rent, and the trial court did not strike the motion as procedurally barred.

Thus, the trial court erred in entering an eviction judgment without first holding a hearing and ruling on the motion.”); Ramirez v. Lopez, 357 So. 3d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“Upon review of the record before us, we reverse the final judgment of eviction in this landlord-tenant dispute because the trial court should have set Tenant's motion to determine rent for an evidentiary hearing to resolve the disputed issue of how much rent Tenant should have deposited into the court 1 We are unable to determine on appeal whether the motion to determine rent was timely filed based on the record.

However, neither the Landlord raised this issue below nor did the trial court strike the motion as procedurally barred. See Axen, 323 So. 3d at 801 n.1.

7

registry.”); Joerger v. Lake Alfred Place, LLC, 398 So. 3d at 465 (“Tenants filed a timely and compliant motion to determine the rent due.

The trial court had to conduct a hearing and make a rent determination, and its premature entry of default final judgment was in error.”). After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court may determine that the Tenant’s acceptance of the Landlord’s offer to take January’s rent out of the deposit amount constituted payment of January’s rent. On this basis, the Tenants are arguing a valid defense that full payment was made.

Therefore, on this additional basis, an evidentiary hearing was required, and the Tenants were not required to deposit the rent money in the court registry. See Colby v. Zicarelli, 392 So. 3d 299, 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024) (“As dictated by statute, the tenant must pay rent into the court registry or file a motion to determine rent . . . ‘The only exception to this express statutory requirement is if the tenant interposes a defense of payment.’ . . . Like a motion to determine rent, [the tenant’s] affirmative defense that she paid the alleged past due rent presents a genuine issue of material fact that warrants a hearing to resolve and precludes issuance of default and final judgment.” (internal citation omitted)).

8

Lastly, “[a]lthough [the Tenants have] already been evicted and [have] moved, we conclude that this appeal is not moot because the eviction can have collateral consequences for [the Tenants] when [they] seek[] to obtain housing or credit. Thus the default final judgment must be reversed.” Jappa v. Master Lessee Mezzo, LLC, 346 So. 3d 222, 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022).

Because the trial court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the Tenants’ motion to determine rent, we reverse the final judgment and remand for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded.