BRIAN J. FREY AND LAURIE FREY, APPELLANTS,
v.
PAMELA E. LIVECCHI, 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.
The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a default eviction judgment where the trial court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the critical issue of whether the Freys occupied the property as month-to-month tenants or under a contract for sale. The court held that this factual dispute was dispositive of whether statutory rent-payment requirements applied and required an evidentiary hearing before imposing those requirements.
The trial court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing before determining whether the Freys were required to comply with rent-payment requirements. Because the applicability of Florida's rent-payment statute hinged on whether the Freys were month-to-month tenants or occupants under a sales contract—a factual dispute—the trial court erred in imposing rent-payment requirements without such a hearing and erred in entering the default judgment.
[1] A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve factual disputes that are dispositive of a case, such as whether a party occupies property under a lease agre…
[2] The statutory requirement to pay rent into the registry of the court in residential landlord-tenant disputes does not apply when the occupancy is under a contract for sal…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Because the defense raised by the Appellants at the trial court warranted an evidentiary hearing, and the trial court failed to conduct one, we reverse and remand with instructions that the court conduct the appropriate hearing.”
Establishes the primary basis for reversal: the trial court's failure to conduct a required evidentiary hearing on a defense warranting such a hearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn June 1998, Pamela Livecchi leased her Coconut Creek home to Brian and Laurie Frey under a one-year residential lease. The Freys claimed that at the…
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 Eviction cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, J.
This appeal arises from a trial court’s entry of a default final judgment of eviction. Because the defense raised by the Appellants at the trial court warranted an evidentiary hearing, and the trial court failed to conduct one, we reverse and remand with instructions that the court conduct the appropriate hearing.
The facts of this case warrant some discussion. Pamela E. Livecchi (“Livec-chi”) is the owner of a home in Coconut Creek. In June of 1998, Livecchi entered into a one-year residential lease agreement with Brian and Laurie Frey (“the Freys”). The Freys alleged that at the end of the lease agreement they had entered into a contract to purchase the property. Livec-chi, on the other hand, asserts that at the end of the lease, the Freys became month-to-month tenants.
On May 16, 2002, Livecchi sent the Freys a notice to vacate the premises. On June 5, 2002, the Freys filed an amended complaint in the circuit court seeking, inter alia, specific performance of the contract to purchase the property. No copy of the purported option to purchase was attached to the complaint.
On July 3, 2002, Livecchi filed a complaint for tenant eviction in the county court. The Freys responded to the complaint asserting as a defense that they occupy the premises pursuant to a contract for sale, not a month-to-month tenancy, and that the court lacked jurisdiction based on the Freys’ previously filed complaint. In addition, the Freys filed a motion to determine the amount of rent due, and a motion to transfer the eviction action to the circuit court. The motion to transfer was granted. In the motion to determine rent due, the Freys contended that the statutory requirement to pay rent into the registry of the court, as well as other provisions applicable to lease situations, did not apply because they occupy the property under a sales contract rather than a lease agreement.
After the case was transferred, Livecchi filed a motion to determine possession of property and/or amount of rent due. The motion was based on the Freys’ failure to pay rent and alleged that they were month-to-month tenants.
On September 17, 2002, without having conducted any' evidentiary hearing, the court granted Livecchi’s motion and ordered the Freys to put money into the court registry within ten days to avoid a default final judgment for eviction. Upon the Freys’ failure to pay the money into the registry, the court entered a default judgment for eviction.
Section 83.60(2), Florida Statutes, requires payment of rent into the registry of the court in residential landlord tenant disputes under Part II of Chapter 83. § 83.60, Fla. Stat. (1999). However, section 83.60 does not apply when the occupancy is under a contract for sale of a dwelling unit or the property of which it is a part. § 83.42(2), Fla. Stat. (1999). The Freys claim that this provision is inapplicable because they were not tenants under the statute. Rather, their claim is based on their rights under a contract for sale. The resolution of this factual dispute would determine whether section 83.60 is applicable. Because such a determination would be dispositive, we hold that the trial court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing before determining whether the Freys were required to pay money into the court registry. Because the trial court failed to conduct such a hearing, we find that the trial court erred in imposing such a requirement, erred in entering the default judgment, and reverse the entry of the final default judgment.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grimm v. Huckabee, 891 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…t to require occupants to deposit rent into the court registry in an eviction proceeding without holding an evidentiary hearing to determine whether they were tenants or occupied the property under a residential sales contract. See Frey v. Livecchi, 852 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). The Frey court explained: Section 83.60(2), Florida Statutes, requires payment of rent into the registry of the court in residential landlqrd tenant disputes under Part II of Chapter 83. § 83.60, Fla. Stat. (1999). However, sec…
-
Dalia Minalla v. Equinamics Corp., 954 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…ng the course of any landlord tenant dispute where the tenant interposes any defense other than payment, the rule yields where title is in issue. This exception is well illustrated by the recent Fourth District Court of Appeal case, Frey v. Livecchi 852 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). In Frey, Pamela Livecchi, the owner of a Broward County home, entered into a one-year residential lease agreement with the Freys. Id. at 897. The Freys alleged that at the end of the lease agreement they had entered into an opti…
-
RSG, LLC v. Lenet, 107 So. 3d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…judgment of eviction and immediate possession [*1190] without notice or a hearing. Instead, the accrual of rent and the applicability of section 83.60(2) turned on the preliminary determination regarding the conditions precedent. Frey v. Livecchi, 852 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), presents a similar issue. The preliminary question before the trial court in that case was whether the defendants’ occupancy was pursuant to a contract for sale or a month-to-month tenancy. In an eviction action filed by the pro…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence