SAXON

v.

BAY RANCH MOBILE VILLAGE, LLP, BAY RANCH MOBILE HOME PARK

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

ANDREW CALHOUN SAXON, Appellant,

v.

BAY RANCH MOBILE VILLAGE, LLP d/b/a BAY RANCH MOBILE HOME PARK, Appellee.

No. 2D2026-1143

November 6, 2026

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the County Court for Pinellas County; Susan Bedinghaus, Judge.

Andrew Calhoun Saxon, pro se.

Patrick M. Singer of Landlord Law, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

MORRIS, Judge.

In this mobile home lot eviction action, Andrew Calhoun Saxon appeals from a Judicial Default and Default Final Judgment for Possession. We remand for the correction of a scrivener's error in the judgment. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.

In the Judicial Default and Default Final Judgment for Possession, the county court found that Mr. Saxon's failure to deposit rent as ordered by the court was an absolute waiver of his defenses under section 723.063(2), Florida Statutes (2026), and that the mobile home park owner, Bay Ranch Mobile Village, was thus entitled to a default judgment in its favor. We find no error there. See § 723.063(2) ("The failure of the mobile home owner to pay the rent, or portion thereof, into the registry of the court as required herein constitutes an absolute waiver of the mobile home owner's defenses other than payment, and the park owner is entitled to an immediate default."). However, although the judgment correctly states in paragraph three that "[a] Judicial Default is entered against Defendant, ANDREW CALHOUN SAXON," as required by section 723.063(2), the judgment then erroneously cites section 83.60(2), Florida Statutes (2026). Bay Ranch Mobile Village concedes in its answer brief that citing section 83.60(2) was error.

Because the judgment correctly entered a judicial default against Mr. Saxon as required by section 723.063(2) but cited the wrong statute, we affirm the judgment but remand for the trial court to correct this scrivener's error with an amended judgment that cites the operative statute. See T.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 298 So. 3d 146, 147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (affirming the judgment but remanding for correction of scrivener's errors when "the written judgment cite[d] the incorrect [statutory] subsections for three of the grounds"); Tunstall v. Gonzalez- Tunstall, 278 So. 3d 254, 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (affirming an order in all respects but remanding to correct a scrivener's error when the error "had no substantive effect" (citing Mitchell v. Mitchell, 841 So. 2d 564, 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003))).

Affirmed and remanded to correct scrivener's error.

KHOUZAM and GUARD, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.