MARUCHI RODRIGUEZ-FARO, APPELLANT,
v.
M. ESCARDA CONTRACTOR, INC., 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.
A homeowner appeals the denial of her motion to vacate a summary judgment for unjust enrichment entered against her in a contractor dispute. The court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding unliquidated damages without providing the defaulting homeowner notice and an opportunity to be heard.
The court reversed the denial of the motion to vacate because the trial court abused its discretion in awarding damages without further evidence. Because the contracted work was not completed, further evidence was required to ascertain the value of work performed, making damages unliquidated and requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard for the defaulting party.
[1] A defaulting party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard when the amount of damages is unliquidated.
[2] A judgment entered without notice and an opportunity to be heard on unliquidated damages is void.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“a defaulting party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard when the amount of damages is unliquidated. See Cellular Warehouse, Inc. v. GH Cellular, LLC, 957 So.2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). Further, a judgment entered without such notice and opportunity to be heard is void.”
Establishes the core legal principle protecting defaulting defendants when damages are not fixed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe homeowner's husband signed a contract with a contractor to renovate their condominium. The contractor began work and the homeowners made payments,…
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
Maruchi Rodriguez-Faro (“the homeowner”) appeals from an order denying her motion to vacate a final summary judgment entered in favor of M. Escarda Contractor, Inc. (“the contractor”). We reverse.
The homeowner’s husband signed an agreement for the contractor to renovate and remodel the couple’s condominium. The contractor began the work, and the homeowners made certain payments. Later a dispute arose and the homeowners refused to make further payments. In response, the contractor filed a mechanic’s lien against the condominium.
Thereafter, the contractor sued the homeowners to foreclose on the mechanic’s lien, and for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. When the homeowner and her husband failed to answer the contractor’s amended complaint, the contractor moved for summary judgment, attaching an affidavit stating the amount due under the contract. At the summary judgment hearing, the homeowner’s husband informed the trial court that he had filed for bankruptcy. Consequently, the trial court denied, without prejudice, the motion for summary judgment against him and the claim to foreclose the mechanic’s lien. Conversely, the trial court granted summary judgment on the contractor’s claim of unjust enrichment against the homeowner, directing execution against the homeowner for' the full unpaid contractual amount.
Almost two years later, when the homeowner failed to appear for a deposition in aid of execution, the contractor moved for sanctions. The homeowner filed a motion to vacate the summary judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. The trial court denied the motion as untimely. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the homeowner asserts, inter alia, that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion because she was not given an opportunity to be heard on the damages. On the other hand, the contractor contends that the trial court properly denied the motion as untimely. We agree with the homeowner.
A trial court’s denial of a motion for relief from judgment is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See State Dep’t of Transp. v. Bailey, 603 So.2d 1384, 1386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). In Florida, it is well settled that a defaulting party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard when the amount of damages is unliquidat-ed. See Cellular Warehouse, Inc. v. GH Cellular, LLC, 957 So.2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). Further, a judgment entered without such notice and opportunity to be heard is void. 957 So.2d at 666. And, a void judgment can be collaterally attacked at any time. See, e.g., Wolfe v. Stevens, 965 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
*1099Damages are unliquidated if they require testimony to ascertain a value. Cellular Warehouse, 957 So.2d at 665. Moreover, where the claim is for unjust enrichment, damages may be considered unliquidated despite an existing contract. See Fiera.com, Inc. v. DigiCast New Media Grp., Inc., 837 So.2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
Here, the only proof of damages the contractor submitted was his affidavit stating the amount which remained unpaid under the contract. Both parties agree that the contracted work was not completed. Therefore, because further evidence was required to ascertain the value of the work performed, the damages were unliq-uidated. Consequently, the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount of damages without further evidence.
Accordingly, we reverse the denial of the motion to vacate the summary judgment, and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Wiggins v. Tigrent, Inc., 147 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…amontagne, 973 So. 2d 1236, 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). On the contrary, a void judgment may be collaterally attacked at any time. Gibson v. Progress Bank of Fla., 54 So. 3d 1058, 1061 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Rodriguez-Faro v. M. Escarda Contractor, Inc., 69 So. 3d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). A decision whether or not to vacate a void judgment is not within the ambit of a trial court’s discretion; if a judgment previously entered is void, the trial court must vacate the judgment. Horton v. Rodriguez Espaillat y…
-
Ciprian-Escapa v. City OF Orlando, 172 So. 3d 485 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…sanction. DYC Fishing, Ltd. v. Martinez, 994 So. 2d 461, 462-63 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). A judgment entered without notice and an opportunity to be heard is void and may be collaterally attacked at any time. Rodriguez-Faro v. M. Escarda Contractor, Inc., 69 So. 3d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (citing Cellular Warehouse, 957 So. 2d at 666). It is well settled that “[a] default admits a plaintiffs entitlement to liquidated damages under a well-pled cause of action, but not to unliquidated damages.” Bodygear Active…
-
Vercosa v. Fields, 174 So. 3d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…Taylor v. Taylor, 67 So. 3d 359, 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). In Florida, it is well settled that a defaulting party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard when the damages are unliquidated. Rodriguez-Faro v. M. Escarda Contractor, Inc., 69 So. 3d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). A judgment entered without such notice and opportunity to be heard is void. See Viets v. Am. Recruiters Enters., Inc., 922 So. 2d 1090, 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“A violation of the due process guarantee of notice and an op…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cellular Warehouse, Inc. v. GH Cellular, LLC, 957 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- State v. Bailey, 603 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- FIERA.COM, Inc. v. Digicast NEW Media Grp., Inc., 837 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Newcomb v. State, 965 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Wolfe v. Stevens, 965 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)