Court Opinion

ID: 9781002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 15:10:10.676923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:17.096511
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                        Opinion filed August 30, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                              No. 3D23-469
                      Lower Tribunal No. 22-7280 CC
                           ________________

                              Bridge Golde,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                              Juan Santana,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Gordon
Murray, Judge.

     Bridge Golde, in proper person.

     No appearance for appellee.

Before EMAS, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed.   See § 83.60(2), Fla. Stat. (2022) (“In an action by the

landlord for possession of a dwelling unit, if the tenant interposes any

defense other than payment, including, but not limited to, the defense of

a defective 3-day notice, the tenant shall pay into the registry of the court

the accrued rent as alleged in the complaint or as determined by the court

and the rent that accrues during the pendency of the proceeding, when due”)

(Emphasis added); 1560-1568 Drexel Ave., LLC v. Dalton, 320 So. 3d 965,

969 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“Section 83.60(2) is not discretionary; it compels a

tenant defending against an eviction to pay into the court registry either (i)

the amount of rent alleged to be due, or (ii) the amount of rent determined

by the court, plus all rent that accrues during the case's pendency”) (citing

First Hanover v. Vazquez, 848 So. 2d 1188, 1190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) and

Stanley v. Quest Int'l Inv., Inc., 50 So. 3d 672, 673 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)).

See also 214 Main St. Corp. v. Tanksley, 947 So. 2d 490, 492 (Fla. 2d DCA

2006) (“The statute does not allow for a procedure whereby a trial court may

excuse the tenant's noncompliance with its prior order. Therefore, we

conclude that the trial court erred in setting aside the default and writ of

possession based upon the finding that the late November payment was the

result of excusable neglect”) (citing § 83.232(5), Fla. Stat. (2005)) (“Failure

of the tenant to pay the rent into the court registry pursuant to court order

                                      2
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.”)

                                      3