PREMISE, INC.; STAY SECURE SOLUTIONS, LLC; AND ROBERT G. NOWELS, APPELLANTS,
v.
WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2017-03-10
No. Case No. 2D16-3466
CASANUEVA and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
215 So. 3d 123 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2017) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

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.

Synopsis

Premise, Inc. and related entities appealed a default judgment for breach of contract, arguing the trial court erred by awarding damages without an evidentiary hearing. The court reversed, holding that damages stated as a minimum amount in the complaint are unliquidated and require a hearing under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(c).


Holding

Damages are liquidated only when their amount can be determined with exactness from the pleaded agreement, arithmetical calculation, or definite rules of law without testimony. When a complaint states damages as a minimum amount, the damages are unliquidated because they are not definite and final, and an evidentiary hearing is required before judgment.


Headnotes

[1] A default entered by the clerk is void when the plaintiff is aware that the defendant is represented by counsel who intends to defend the action, and the plaintiff fails…

[2] The term "any paper" in the context of rule 1.500(b), Fla.R.Civ.P., requiring notice of an application for default, is liberally construed to include any communication in…

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

Key Quotes

“Damages are unliquidated when their ascertainment requires the taking of testimony.”

Establishes the fundamental test for distinguishing unliquidated from liquidated damages.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Premise contracted with Withlacoochee River Electric Cooperative (WREC) for purchase and maintenance of computer hardware and software, including a fi…

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.


Opinion of the Court
VILLANTI, Chief Judge.

VILLANTI, Chief Judge.

Premise, Inc., Stay Secure Solutions, LLC, and Robert G. Nowels (collectively “Premise”) appeal an order which denied a motion to set aside final judgment entered in favor of Withlacoochee River Electric Cooperative, Inc. (WREC), in an action for breach of contract arising from a purchase and maintenance agreement. Because the trial court based the default judgment amount upon its erroneous belief that the damages alleged in the complaint were liquidated, we must reverse.

Premise contracted with WREC for the purchase and maintenance of computer hardware and software. The terms of the contract included a five-year hardware and software support plan from IBM. When Premise failed to provide the support plan starting in the third year of the five-year term, WREC filed a complaint asserting that its “damages are at a minimum the cost of the line item Defendants failed to provide, which totaled $47,994.85 ($44,855 plus 7% tax).” Premise did not respond to WREC’s complaint, and default was entered. The trial court then entered final judgment in favor of WREC, and it awarded damages without conducting an eviden-tiary hearing because WREC requested liquidated damages based on the line item from the contract. Thereafter, Premise filed an amended motion to set aside final judgment and request for evidentiary hearing, in which it argued that the court erred in awarding damages without holding a hearing because the damages were not liquidated. A hearing on the motion was held, and the trial court ruled in favor of WREC, denying the motion. This appeal follows.

As a general rule, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(c) requires an evi-dentiary hearing on claims for unliquidated damages. See Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. Sawh, 194 So.3d 475, 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). “Damages are unliquidated when their ascertainment requires the taking of testimony.” Medcom USA, Inc. v. Ryder Homes & Groves Co., 847 So.2d 594, 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Conversely, to be liquidated, the damages alleged in the complaint must be certain without the necessity of an evidentiary hearing and “the proper amount to be awarded can be determined with exactness from the cause of action as pleaded, i.e., from a pleaded agreement between the parties, by an arithmetical calculation or by application of definite rules of law.” Bodygear Activewear, Inc. v. Counter Intelligence Servs., 946 So.2d 1148, 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (quoting Pierce v. Anglin, 721 So.2d 781, 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)). “Specific damages that are alleged in the complaint are admitted by default[,] ... become liquidated damages,” and require no further proof of damages. Ciprian-Escapa v. City of Orlando, 172 So.3d 485, 489 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Maggiano v. Whiskey Creek Prof'l Ctr., LLC, 160 So.3d 535, 536 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). However, in order to become liquidated in this manner, the damages must be definite and final. Ciprian-Escapa, 172 So.3d at 489. Moreover, “while specific damages alleged in a complaint *125may be considered in some circumstances as liquidated, where, as here, the specific sum stated is claimed to be ... the minimum amount due ... the amount alleged is not liquidated.” Sawh, 194 So.3d at 480.

Here, in WREC’s complaint, it asserted that its “damages are at a minimum the cost of the line item Defendants failed to provide, which totaled $47,994.85 ($44,-855 plus 7% tax).” (Emphasis added.) The use of the phrase “damages are at a minimum” in a complaint is inconsistent with the assertion that the trial court can determine liquidated damages without a hearing. Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, the default does not dispense with the need for a hearing on damages after notice. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(e); Ciprian-Escapa, 172 So.3d at 488 (stating that the failure to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440 is reversible error).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine damages.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

CASANUEVA and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Alyssabeth Klein v. Est. of Eleanor H. Klein, 295 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
  • Iman Emami v. Progressive Brands, Inc., 225 So. 3d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
    …to liability in a breach of contract action, the “trial court erred in denying [the defendant’s] motion to set aside the default final judgment on the issue of unliquidated damages”); see also Premise, Inc. v. Withlacoochee River Elec. Coop., Inc., 215 So. 3d 123, 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (providing that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(c) requires an evidentiary hearing on claims for unliquidated damages against parties in default). Conclusion Under these facts, we hold that the final default judgment…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw