5051 NW 37 AVENUE CORP., ET AL.

v.

IES SALES AND SERVICE, LLC, ET AL.

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May 15, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1120 Lower Tribunal No. 22-4658 ________________

5051 NW 37 Avenue Corp., et al., Appellants,

vs.

IES Sales and Service, LLC, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose M. Rodriguez, Judge.

Darius Asly, for appellants.

Craig B. Shapiro, P.A., and Craig B. Shapiro, for appellees.

Before EMAS, SCALES and MILLER, JJ.

EMAS, J.

2

INTRODUCTION

This action arises from a commercial lease and the alleged nonpayment of rent. 5051 NW 37 Avenue Corp., and Green 36 LLC (together, “Landlord”) challenge the trial court’s order denying their motion for immediate default for possession based on the failure of IES Sales and Services LLC, and Osniel Sanchez (together, “Tenant”) to timely pay rent into the court’s registry as ordered by the trial court. More specifically, the trial court ordered Tenant to pay monthly rent (of $21,305.22) into the court registry “the first day of each month.” The trial court made this oral pronouncement on Wednesday, April 26, 2023, and entered the written order on Thursday, May 4. Tenant paid the full amount due on Thursday, May¹¹, 2023. Despite Tenant’s undisputedly untimely payment, the trial court denied Landlord’s motion. On appeal, Landlord contends the trial court lacked discretion, under section 83.232, Florida Statutes (2023), to deny the motion for immediate default for possession. In response, Tenant contends the statute includes a good cause exception and that there is evidence to support the trial court’s exercise of discretion in this case. We reverse and remand for entry of a default and writ of possession, and hold that, under the facts presented, the trial court was without discretion to deny Landlord’s motion.

3

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The relevant facts are largely undisputed: In 2020, Landlord leased its property to Tenant IES Sales and Services, LLC and Osniel Sanchez. On February¹¹, 2022, Landlord terminated the lease for failure to timely pay rent in October, November and December 2021. Upon a notice declaring the lease terminated, Tenant refused to surrender possession of the premises to Landlord, who filed suit in March 2022 for unpaid rent, damages, and possession of the premises. In May 2022, Tenant responded to the suit by filing, inter alia, a motion to determine rent and a motion to deposit rent into the court’s registry. During the first year the lawsuit remained pending (March 2022-March 2023), Tenant consistently paid rent to the Landlord. On March 16, 2023, Landlord again served Tenant with a notice declaring the lease terminated and demanding that Tenant surrender possession of the premises by March 31, but on a new basis. This notice of termination was based on Tenant’s purported failure to pay additional rent due in the amount of $11,287.24. Such additional rent was based on a pass-

1 Article⁷ of the lease, entitled “Operating Cost Pass Through,” provides the basis for the requested “Additional Rent.” Article 5.4 further provides: “Tenant agrees to pay Additional Rent upon demand by Landlord. Additional Rent is to be treated in the same manner as Rent hereunder, both in terms of the lien for Rent herein provided and in terms of the default provisions herein contained.”

The order further noted Tenant’s intention “to file a motion to determine rent with regard to the $11,287.24 2022 real estate tax increase alleged as overdue in the complaint . . . ; therefore, that matter will be adjudicated at a later date and may require an evidentiary hearing.” It is undisputed that Tenant did not deposit the rent into the court registry until May¹¹, 2023—fifteen days after the court’s oral pronouncement and seven days after entry of the written order.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Because we are called upon to review the trial court’s construction of a statute, our standard of review is de novo. Cauble v. Kaczmarski, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D628, 2024 WL 1183566, at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 20, 2024) (“[S]tatutory interpretation is a question of law subject to de novo review.”) (quoting GTC, Inc. v. Edgar, 967 So. 2d 781, 785 (Fla. 2007)).

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The parties disagree over the construction and application of section 83.232, Florida Statutes (2023), which provides in pertinent part:

(1) In an action by the landlord which includes a claim for possession of real property, the tenant shall pay into the court registry the amount alleged in the complaint as unpaid, or if such amount is contested, such amount as is determined by the court, and any rent accruing during the pendency of the action, when due, unless the tenant has interposed the defense of payment or satisfaction of the rent in the amount the complaint alleges as unpaid. Unless the tenant disputes the amount of accrued rent, the tenant must pay the amount alleged in the complaint into the court registry on or before the date on which his or her answer to the claim for possession is due. If the tenant contests the amount of accrued rent, the tenant must pay the amount determined by the court into the court registry on the day that the court makes its determination. The court may, however, extend these time periods to allow for later payment, upon good cause shown. Even though the defense of

. . .

(5) Failure of the tenant to pay the rent into the court registry pursuant to court order shall be deemed an absolute waiver of the tenant's defenses. In such case, the landlord is entitled to an immediate default for possession without further notice or hearing thereon.

(Emphasis added). Landlord contends, correctly, that under the circumstances presented, the trial court lacked any discretion under the statute to deny the motion for immediate default for possession upon Tenant’s failure to pay rent by either: - April 26, the date on which the trial court made its determination, and orally pronounced, the amount Tenant was required to pay into the court registry;2 or

2 As noted earlier, the statute provides: “If the tenant contests the amount of accrued rent, the tenant must pay the amount determined by the court into the court registry on the day that the court makes its determination.” (Emphasis added). One could make a cogent argument that the trial court had already exercised its discretion on April 26, by permitting Tenant to pay rent on May 1 (and the first of every month thereafter), instead of on April 26

(the date that the trial court made its determination of the amount of rent to be paid into the court registry). 3 We reject Tenant’s argument that the April 26 order was not effective until a written order was rendered. See Lazy Flamingo, USA, Inc. v. Greenfield, 834 So. 2d 413, 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“A court's oral order is valid and binds the parties even though a written order has not been entered.”) (citing Knott v. Knott, 395 So. 2d 1196, 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)).

Blandin v. Bay Porte Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 988 So. 2d 666, 669 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). See also Ninter Grp. USA, Inc. v. Zenash LLC, 312 So. 3d 82, 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (May, J., concurring) (“It would seem to me that the facts of this case (a dispute over the amount due, a hurricane, it being unclear whether the tenant received the rent order, the tenant's payment of the previously owed amount, payment of the additional amount within a few days, and an ongoing dispute over who breached the mediated settlement agreement) should allow for equitable relief. But our court has interpreted the provision for extensions of time to be limited to a time frame preceding a court-ordered due date.”) (quoting Blandin, 988 So. 2d at 669).

CONCLUSION

Because Tenant failed to pay the rent into the court registry “on the day that the court ma[de] its determination,” or by the date specified in that court order, the trial court erred in denying Landlord’s motion for immediate default for possession, regardless of the purported reason for Tenant’s failure to timely pay.⁴ Even if the trial court had the discretion under the statute to

4 We find no merit in the remaining arguments raised by Tenant on appeal.