YVERN JONES
v.
IVY M. REID
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 trial court errs in entering a final judgment of eviction when the tenant has filed a timely answer, affirmative defenses, and a motion to determine rent that remain pending and undisposed.
[1] A trial court may not enter a final judgment of eviction while a tenant's timely answer, affirmative defenses, and motion to determine rent remain pending and undisposed.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA landlord filed an eviction complaint against a tenant. The tenant timely filed an answer denying material allegations, raised affirmative defenses i…
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.
EMAS, J.
Yvern Jones (“Tenant”) appeals from a Final Judgment for Removal of Tenant following an eviction complaint filed by Ivy M. Reid (“Landlord”). Upon our review of the record, and Landlord’s pleading (which we treat as a confession of error), we reverse the final judgment and remand for further proceedings.
In response to Landlord’s eviction complaint, Tenant timely filed an answer and affirmative defenses as well as a motion for determination of rent. The answer denied the material allegations of the complaint; the affirmative defenses raised legal and equitable defenses, including a claim of retaliatory eviction; and moved for a determination of rent, alleging that Tenant was a “Section 8 voucher participant” and requesting the trial court determine how much (if any) rent Tenant was required to deposit into the registry of the court.
Landlord thereafter filed a motion requesting the court enter a default final judgment, asserting as a basis that Tenant “has not vacated the premises as requested in the complaint.” The timely answer and affirmative defenses, and the motion to determine rent (as well as Landlord’s motion to strike answer and enter default) all remained pending when the trial court, without a hearing, entered an unelaborated Final Judgment for Removal of Tenant. Tenant sought rehearing and moved to vacate the default final 2 judgment, which was denied, but the trial court stayed the writ of possession during the pendency of this appeal.
Given the procedural posture of the case, the trial court’s entry of final judgment was erroneous. See Crawford v. Grubb, 337 So. 3d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (reversing final judgment of eviction, where trial court prematurely entered a default final judgment after tenant filed a timely answer and affirmative defenses). See also Axen v. Poah Cutler Manor, LLC, 323 So. 3d 800, 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (reversing final judgment of eviction because “the undisposed-of motion to determine rent precluded entry of final judgment”); Prince v. MCR Apts. 1, LLC, 326 So. 3d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (reversing final judgment of eviction when motion to determine rent remained pending and unresolved).
We therefore reverse and remand with directions to vacate the default final judgment and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Artheisha Axen v. Poah Cutler Manor, LLC, 323 So. 3d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- Prince v. MCR Apts. 1, LLC, 326 So. 3d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- LEA Crawford v. Grubb, 337 So. 3d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)