BEZL LIMITED, LLC v. RAYMOND OFFICE PLAZA, LLC ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •        DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
    FOURTH DISTRICT
    BEZL LIMITED, LLC,
    Appellant,
    v.
    RAYMOND OFFICE PLAZA, LLC,
    Appellee.
    No. 4D20-743
    [March 17, 2021]
    Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
    Beach County; G. Joseph Curley, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No.
    502019CA012140.
    Donna Greenspan Solomon of Solomon Appeals, Mediation &
    Arbitration, Fort Lauderdale, and John E. Carter of Big Sky Law Firm,
    LLC, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Jack A. Fleischman of Fleischman & Fleischman, P.A., West Palm
    Beach, for appellee.
    GERBER, J.
    A non-residential tenant appeals from the circuit court’s amended final
    default judgment for possession. The circuit court entered the final
    judgment pursuant to section 83.232(5), Florida Statutes (2019), based on
    the tenant’s ultimate failure to comply with the circuit court’s previous
    order to pay the monthly rent into the court registry while the landlord’s
    eviction action was pending. See § 83.232(5), Fla. Stat. (2019) (“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.”).
    We affirm the circuit court’s amended final judgment of possession.
    “Florida courts consistently have held that trial courts have no discretion
    in entering an immediate default for possession under these
    circumstances. The trial court may not consider the reasons why the
    deposit was not timely made.” Park Adult Residential Facility, Inc. v. Dan
    Designs, Inc., 
    36 So. 3d 811
    , 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); see also id. at n.1
    (“Although we may have ‘rachmones’ for the tenant, see Lerner v. Brin, 
    608 So. 2d 519
     (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), the law is the law. It is not our job to carve
    exceptions into an otherwise clear and imperative statute.”).
    As we recently reiterated, while the result may be “harsh”:
    [T]he reason for failing to tender payment on the first day of
    the month is not relevant. See [Poal Wk Taft, LLC v. Johnson
    Med. Ctr. Corp., 
    45 So. 3d 37
    , 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)]
    (“Although the result may seem harsh ..., there is no equitable
    exception to the statute.” (citing Courthouse Tower, Ltd. v.
    Manzini & Assocs., 
    683 So. 2d 215
     (Fla. 3d DCA 1996))).
    When a tenant fails to tender payment on or before the
    deadline, the court must issue a default for possession. See,
    e.g., Park Adult Residential Facility, Inc. ... , 36 So. 3d [at] 813
    ... (“[T]he tenant failed to deposit the rent into the court
    registry on the date ordered. Regardless of the tenant’s reason
    for failing to make the deposit, the trial court was statutorily
    required to enter an immediate default and writ of
    possession.”).
    Cove & Deerfield Beach, LLC v. R Fast, Inc., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2640, 
    2020 WL 6937858
    , at *2 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 25, 2020); see also Kosoy Kendall
    Assocs., LLC v. Los Latinos Rest. Inc., 
    10 So. 3d 1168
    , 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA
    2009) (“Upon the lessee’s failure to timely deposit a monthly rental
    payment into the registry as required by court order under section 83.232,
    Florida Statute[s], the petitioner-landlord was absolutely entitled to an ex
    parte, immediate default for a writ of possession of the premises by section
    83.232(5), Florida Statute[s].”) (internal and external footnotes omitted).
    We note that our affirmance of the circuit court’s amended final
    judgment of possession, and the waiver of the tenant’s defenses to the
    landlord’s eviction action, is without prejudice to: (1) the landlord’s
    remaining claims for damages and the tenant’s defenses thereto; and (2)
    the tenant’s counterclaims for damages and the landlord’s defenses
    thereto. See Cove & Deerfield Beach, 
    2020 WL 6937858
    , at *2 (“[T]he
    landlord is entitled to a default for possession in accordance with section
    83.232(5), not disbursement of the deposited funds.”) (quoting Palm Beach
    Marketplace, LLC v. Aleyda’s Mexican Restaurante, Inc., 
    103 So. 3d 911
    ,
    912 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)). Thus, nothing in this opinion should be
    interpreted as a comment on the merits of the parties’ damages claims,
    damages counterclaims, and defenses to each.
    2
    Affirmed.
    MAY and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
    *       *        *
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    3