Exclusive Motoring Worldwide, Inc. v. Soral Invs., Inc.

349 So.3d 490

EXCLUSIVE MOTORING WORLDWIDE, INC., et al., Appellants,

v.SORAL INVESTMENTS, INC., Appellee.

No. 3D21-1833

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion Filed October 6, 2022

Varca Law, PLLC, and Christopher A. Varca, (Deerfield Beach), for appellants.

Patterson & Sweeny, PL, and John H. Patterson, Jr., for appellee.

Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from a commercial eviction and damages action filed by Soral Investments, Inc. ("Landlord") against Exclusive Motoring Worldwide, Inc. and Rolando Ramirez (collectively, "Tenant"). Following service of the complaint, both parties sought a determination of the rent due to be deposited into the court registry pursuant to section 83.232, Florida Statutes. The central dispute concerned whether Tenant was required to deposit rent that had allegedly been deferred by agreement of the parties for the period of June 2020 through April 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court ordered Tenant to deposit the deferred rent into the court registry and further ordered that the rent already paid by Tenant into the court registry for the period of June 2021 through September 2021, totaling approximately $53,047.42, be disbursed to the Landlord based on the Landlord's hardship resulting from the loss of the rental income. Tenant appealed.

Having carefully reviewed the record on appeal, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring payment of the deferred rent into the court registry. We do, however, agree with Tenant that the trial court erred in ordering disbursement of the full rent amount paid into the court registry for June-September 2021. Section 83.232(1) provides that the trial court may disburse all or part of the funds held in the court registry "[i]f the landlord is in actual danger of loss of the premises or other hardship resulting from the loss of rental income from the premises[.]" Here, the only evidence supporting a finding of hardship warranting disbursement of funds was the Landlord's testimony at the evidentiary hearing that it required $3,000 per month in costs to cover taxes and insurance for the property, which was less than the full rent amount the trial court ultimately ordered to be disbursed.

To its credit, the trial court apparently addressed this issue a few days later when it granted in part Tenant's Emergency Motion to Stay pending this appeal, staying disbursement...