Background
Monticello Elderly Housing Ltd. filed a two-count complaint against tenants Ruby Borders and Larry Kirksey. Count I sought eviction, alleging the lease expired on January 31, 2025, and the landlord elected not to renew due to multiple material violations including insufficient rent payments and water utility disconnection. An eighty-four-day notice of nonrenewal was provided but the tenants failed to vacate. Count II sought damages for unpaid rent and late fees. After the nonrenewal, rent increased because the tenants no longer qualified for federal subsidies due to failure to recertify their income.
The tenants filed a pro se answer disputing that the water was disconnected and offering explanations for nonpayment (including hospitalization), but did not allege payment as a defense, did not deposit rent into the court registry, and did not move to determine the amount of rent owed. The landlord moved for default judgment under section 83.60(2), Florida Statutes, which provides specific requirements for tenants to avoid default in eviction actions.
The Court’s Holding
The First DCA reversed the denial of the default judgment motion. The court held that under section 83.60(2), a tenant in a residential eviction who wishes to contest the action must either allege payment as an affirmative defense and deposit the disputed rent into the court registry, or move the court to determine the amount of rent to be deposited. Here, the tenants did neither—their answer disputed factual allegations but did not assert payment, deposit any rent, or seek a determination of the amount owed. Under the plain language of the statute, the landlord was therefore entitled to a default judgment of possession.
Key Takeaways
- Under section 83.60(2), a residential tenant who fails to either deposit rent into the court registry or move for a determination of the rent amount is subject to default judgment regardless of other defenses raised in their answer.
- A pro se tenant’s answer that disputes factual allegations but does not specifically assert payment as an affirmative defense fails to satisfy section 83.60(2)’s requirements.
- Explanations for nonpayment (such as hospitalization) do not substitute for compliance with the statutory deposit requirement.
Why It Matters
This case is critical for both landlord-tenant practitioners and pro se tenants navigating Florida’s residential eviction process. Section 83.60(2) creates a procedural gauntlet that tenants must clear to avoid default—and this decision confirms that the statute means what it says. For landlords, the case provides clear authority to seek default judgment when tenants fail to comply with deposit requirements, even if they file responsive pleadings raising other issues. For tenant advocates, it underscores the urgency of educating pro se tenants about the deposit requirement, which is not intuitive and can result in loss of possession regardless of the merits of other defenses.