CHARLOTTE HARBOR PROPERTIES ASSOCIATES, LTD., A NEW JERSEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND CHARLOTTE HARBOR PROPERTIES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES J. HUFF, APPELLEE
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.
Default judgment for unliquidated damages must be vacated because the trial court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the actual amount owed.
A default judgment for unliquidated damages must be vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine actual damages when the claim is not based on an arithmetically certain calculation or definite rules of law.
[1] A default judgment for unliquidated damages that is not based on an arithmetically certain calculation or definite rules of law requires an evidentiary hearing to determi…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 trial court erred in denying Charlotte Properties' motion to set aside the final default judgment”
Court's conclusion regarding the trial court's error in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing before imposing dollar liability
Charlotte Harbor Properties was sued by James J. Huff, who pleaded an entitlement to unliquidated damages in the amount of $108,500. The trial court e…
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 Unliquidated Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Chief Judge.
Charlotte Harbor Properties Associates, Ltd. and Charlotte Harbor Properties, Inc. (Charlotte Properties) have appealed from an order denying relief from a final judgment. Although this matter followed a somewhat complex procedural course, it is sufficient for present purposes to note that a default judgment was entered by the trial court in favor of James J. Huff. Although Charlotte Properties has raised several issues in an attack upon the judgment, the only point with merit concerns the trial court’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing before entering final judgment in the amount of $108,670.51. The final judgment must be reversed and vacated only to the extent of the amount of damages.
Huffs amended complaint, which was the sole basis for the trial court’s action, pleads an entitlement to unliquidated damages in the amount of $108,500. See Tand v. C.F.S. Bakeries, Inc., 559 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990). In light of the absence of an evidentiary hearing, Charlotte Properties’ post judgment motion for relief correctly disputed the imposition of dollar liability. Because Huffs pleaded damage claim is not based upon an arithmetically certain calculation or the application of definite rules of law, see Bowman v. Kingsland Development, Inc., 432 So. 2d 660, 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), the trial court erred in denying Charlotte Properties’ motion to set aside the final default judgment.
Accordingly, the final default judgment is vacated and we remand for a determination of actual damages based upon an evidentiary record.
BLUE and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hill v. Murphy, 872 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…783; Bowman v. Kingsland Dev., Inc., 432 So. 2d 660, 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Damages are liquidated when they can be determined by mathematical calculation or the application of definite rules of law. Charlotte Harbor Props. Assocs., Ltd. v. Huff, 632 So. 2d 229, 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Bowman, 432 So. 2d at 662. Medcom USA, Inc. v. Ryder Homes & Groves Co., 847 So. 2d 594, 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); see also Fiera.com, Inc. v. DigiCast New Media Group, Inc., 837 So. 2d 451, 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Here, as…
-
Medcom USA, Inc. v. Ryder Homes & Groves Co., 847 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…783; Bowman v. Kingsland Dev., Inc., 432 So. 2d 660, 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Damages are liquidated when they can be determined by mathematical calculation or the application of definite rules of law. Charlotte Harbor Props. Assocs., Ltd. v. Huff, 632 So. 2d 229, 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Bowman, 432 So. 2d at 662. Count two of the complaint seeks damages for breach of the lease. It alleges the failure to pay the monthly rent, building expenses, and common area expenses from July 1, 2001, through September 1…
-
Robert Maggiano, D.O., P.A. v. Whiskey Creek Prof'l Ctr., LLC, 160 So. 3d 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…o. 2d 594, 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Whether the damages are liquidated by the complaint is a question of law. Talbot v. Rosenbaum, 142 So. 3d 965, 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). This case is similar to Charlotte Harbor Properties Associates, Ltd. v. Huff, 632 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), in which the complaint alleged a monetary amount of damages without explaining how that amount was determined. This court held [*537] that the amount was not liquidated because the amount was “not based upon an arithmetically cer…
Authorities Cited
- Flagship Nat'l Bank OF Miami v. Gray Distrib. Sys., Inc., 432 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Tand v. C.F.S. Bakeries, Inc., 559 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)