Payment to Court Isn't Proof of Default

November 30, 2008

Facts: An owner sued a tenant, claiming that it owed past-due rent. The amount was in dispute. The owner submitted two separate amounts, with one being substantially larger than the other. In accordance with state law, the tenant deposited the disputed amount in an account managed by the court and then filed a response contesting the owner's claim.

Even though the owner was unable to prove which amount was correct, the lower court ruled in its favor and granted possession. However, the court delayed execution of the order, pending the tenant's appeal.

Facts: An owner sued a tenant, claiming that it owed past-due rent. The amount was in dispute. The owner submitted two separate amounts, with one being substantially larger than the other. In accordance with state law, the tenant deposited the disputed amount in an account managed by the court and then filed a response contesting the owner's claim.

Even though the owner was unable to prove which amount was correct, the lower court ruled in its favor and granted possession. However, the court delayed execution of the order, pending the tenant's appeal.

Decision: A Florida appeals court reversed the lower court's decision and ruled in favor of the tenant.

Reasoning: The court ruled that the tenant's payment into the court account was an effort to comply with state law, not proof that it was in default. Also, because the owner could not prove how much the tenant owed, it failed to meet all of the elements necessary to support an eviction action.

  • Dream Closet, Inc. v. Palm Beach Mall, LLC, August 2008

Topics

More like this