Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed June 23, 2021.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-0075
Lower Tribunal Nos. 19-11149 CC, 19-340 AP
________________
Artheisha Axen,
Appellant,
vs.
POAH Cutler Manor, LLC,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Patricia
Marino Pedraza, Judge.
Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. and Jeffrey M. Hearne, for
appellant.
Alvarez, Feltman, Da Silva & Costa, P.L., and Paul B. Feltman, for
appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ.
BOKOR, J.
In a summary eviction proceeding, including an eviction for something
other than nonpayment of rent, section 83.60(2), Florida Statutes, mandates
that within five business days of service of process, a tenant must pay
accrued rent into the court registry or file a motion to determine rent. Here,
the record reflects Axen’s initial filing into the court registry of rent due as
well as a motion to determine rent, in compliance with the statute. The trial
court never heard or otherwise disposed of the motion to determine rent.
Despite the pending motion to determine rent, and a renewed motion to
determine rent, filed in response to Cutler Manor’s motion for final judgment,
the trial court granted Cutler Manor’s motion for final judgment and issued a
final judgment for possession. Axen appeals, asserting that the trial court
erred by entering final judgment without addressing the motion to determine
rent. For the reasons set forth below, we agree.
Although the underlying complaint sought summary eviction based on
a purported lease violation, not nonpayment of rent, the October 8, 2019,
verified motion for final judgment sought possession based on Axen’s failure
to continue to deposit rent into the court registry under section 83.60(2).
Axen responded to the motion for final judgment the next day, again
requesting a determination of rent due. The record shows no order disposing
of either the original motion to determine rent filed on October 5, 2016, or the
2
renewed motion to determine rent filed on October 9, 2019. Fifteen days
after Axen’s response to the original verified motion, Cutler Manor filed its
amended verified motion for final judgment, again premised on nonpayment
of rent. The amended verified motion for final judgment was set for hearing
on October 31, 2019. On the morning of the hearing, Axen deposited the
outstanding rent claimed in the amended verified motion for final judgment
into the court registry. The record contains no transcript of the hearing in the
trial court. On November 6, 2019, the court entered an order granting Cutler
Manor’s amended verified motion for final judgment.
Without a transcript of a hearing, “[e]ven when based on erroneous
reasoning, a conclusion or decision of a trial court will generally be affirmed
if the evidence or an alternative theory supports it. . . . However, a
misconception by the trial judge of a controlling principle of law can constitute
grounds for reversal.” Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d
1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (internal citations omitted). Cutler Manor claims that
the failure to continue to deposit rent timely during the pendency of an
eviction voids any defense to the eviction other than payment. As this court
explained, “[t]he typical eviction case involves a tenant in possession after
the commencement of a lease. In such a case, payment of the rent into the
registry is the statutory requirement for continued occupancy while the
3
eviction case is prosecuted and decided.” RSG, LLC v. Lenet, 107 So. 3d
1187, 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). However, this general rule must be read in
the context of the entire statute. The pertinent language requires “the tenant
to pay the rent into the registry of the court or to file a motion to determine
the amount of rent to be paid . . . .” §83.60(2), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added).
Giving effect to and harmonizing all relevant statutory provisions and
applying it here, the undisposed-of motion to determine rent precluded entry
of final judgment based on nonpayment. 1 To hold otherwise would fail to
read the statute as a consistent whole and create an absurd result. 2 See
Heart of Adoptions, Inc. v. J.A., 963 So. 2d 189, 199 (Fla. 2007).
Here, even without the benefit of a transcript, we know that the trial
court entered final judgment without consideration of the motion to determine
rent because the trial court’s order simply grants Cutler Manor’s motion.
Cutler Manor’s motion made no reference to the motion to determine rent
and sought final judgment solely based on the tenant’s nonpayment during
1
A trial court typically disposes of a motion to determine rent in one of two
ways: (1) the court sets an expedited evidentiary hearing and issues an order
setting the rent to be deposited; or (2) the court strikes the motion as
procedurally barred (usually based on the motion of the landlord pointing out
statutory or procedural infirmities).
2
Cutler Manor argues that we need not address the motion to determine rent
because Axen was late in depositing rent during the pendency of the action.
But that argument misconstrues the statute and fails to give meaning to each
provision.
4
the pendency of the action. Accordingly, we vacate the final judgment for
eviction as well as the order granting Cutler Manor’s amended verified
motion for final judgment and remand to the trial court to conduct a hearing
on the motion to determine rent forthwith.
Reversed and remanded.
5
ARTHEISHA AXEN v. POAH CUTLER MANOR, LLC
Combined Opinion