Vulac v. CVAR International — affirmed eviction after tenant failed to deposit rent in court registry

Case
Boris Jean-Philippe Vulac v. CVAR International LLC
Court
Florida Third District Court of Appeal
Judge
Fernandez; Logue; Bokor
Date Decided
October 21, 2026
Docket No.
3D26-0182
Topics
Landlord-Tenant, Eviction, Personal Jurisdiction, Court Registry
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Boris Jean-Philippe Vulac challenged his landlord’s eviction action on the ground that improper service deprived the county court of personal jurisdiction. During the litigation, however, Vulac filed a permissive counterclaim seeking $50,000 for emotional distress and reputational damage.

The county court entered a default judgment removing Vulac and issued a writ of possession after he failed to pay accrued rent into the court registry. Vulac appealed that ruling to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal.

The Court’s Holding

The Third District held that Vulac waived his lack-of-personal-jurisdiction defense by seeking affirmative relief through his permissive counterclaim. By filing that counterclaim, he submitted himself to the county court’s jurisdiction despite the alleged defect in service.

Because Vulac asserted defenses other than payment, section 83.60(2), Florida Statutes, required him to deposit the accrued rent into the court registry. Once his failure to make that payment was established, the statute required the trial court to enter a default judgment removing him and to issue a writ of possession. The appellate court therefore affirmed.

Key Takeaways

  • A tenant may waive an objection to personal jurisdiction based on defective service by filing a permissive counterclaim seeking affirmative relief.
  • A tenant asserting an eviction defense other than payment must comply with section 83.60(2)’s court-registry requirement.
  • Failure to deposit the required rent constitutes an absolute waiver of defenses other than payment and entitles the landlord to an immediate default judgment for possession.

Why It Matters

The decision underscores two procedural risks for tenants contesting eviction: seeking affirmative relief can forfeit a service-based jurisdictional objection, and failure to deposit required rent into the court registry can eliminate defenses other than payment. The Third District treated the registry requirement as mandatory, leaving the trial court no discretion once nonpayment into the registry was established.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top