Poky Mgmt. v. Solutrean Inv. Grp.

390 So.3d 753

POKY MANAGEMENT, LLC., a Florida Limited Liability Company, Appellant,

v.SOLUTREAN INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC., a Florida Limited Liability Company and Criminal Defense League Processing, LLC., a Florida Limited Liability Company, Appellees.

Case No. 5D2023-0169

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

July 12, 2024

On appeal from the County Court for Duval County. Emmet F. Ferguson, III, Judge. LT Case No. 2019-CC-05748

Shaun C. Saliba, of St. Johns Law Group, St. Augustine, for Appellant.

Kevin Loftus, of The Loftus Law Firm, Jacksonville, for Appellees.

Edwards, C.J.

This is an appeal from a county court order denying recovery of attorney’s fees in a commercial landlord-tenant action and that court’s order denying a timely motion for rehearing. The Landlord’s, Poky Management, LLC., complaint for eviction included a claim for possession due to non-payment of rent and a general demand for attorney’s fees and attached the lease which included a prevailing party attorney’s fees clause. In their answer to Landlord’s complaint, Tenants, Solutre- an Investment Group, LLC., and Criminal Defense League Processing, LLC., failed to contest the validity of the lease or its attorney’s fees provision. The trial court ultimately denied Landlord’s claim for attorney’s fees based on its finding that the lease was void. As that defense was neither pled nor tried by consent, it could not be the basis for the trial court’s ruling. Accordingly, we find that the trial court erred in denying Landlord’s claim for attorney’s fees and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine the reasonable amount of fees to which Landlord is entitled.

Landlord purchased the building occupied by Tenants from Salisbury Road Condominium JV4, LLC. Salisbury and Tenants had previously entered into a lease agreement requiring payment of rent on a monthly basis. As a result of the purchase, Appellant became the successor landlord under the lease. In Tenants’ answer to the complaint the only defenses asserted were that the complaint failed to state a cause of action and that the amount of past due rent should be reduced because Landlord failed to provide air conditioning to the premises.

Tenants’ failure to pay rent into the registry of the court, as ordered, resulted in the county court entering a Default Final Judgment for Possession, based upon section 83.232(5), Florida Statutes (2019), in favor of Landlord. The county court reserved jurisdiction in the default possession judgment to award costs and fees. In response to Landlord’s motion for costs and attorney’s fees, Tenants alleged that they had entered into a Conditional Equity Agreement with Salisbury by which they were released from any obligations under the subject lease.

At the hearing on the motion for attorney’s fees and costs, over objection, Tenants relied upon and introduced into evidence the Conditional Equity Agreement as a defense to payment. Landlord objected because Tenants failed to claim that the lease was invalid for any reason and had not mentioned anything about the agreement as a defense or affirmative defense in their answer to the complaint. Nevertheless, the trial court permitted Tenants to pursue the defense that they had been released by the Conditional Equity Agreement. It ultimately entered an order simply denying Landlord’s motion. On appeal, the circuit court reversed and remanded to the county court for entry of a more detailed order, as there was insufficient information in the unelaborated order to determine why Landlord’s motion had been denied.¹

Following remand, the county court conducted another hearing in October 2021 on Landlord’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Once again, the Tenants, over Landlord’s objections, relied on the Conditional Equity Agreement as providing for their release. Once again, Landlord argued that it was entitled to attorney’s fees as demanded in its complaint and as further provided for in the lease attached to the complaint. Landlord once again objected to the trial court’s consideration of the unpled defense of release via supposed non-performance of its predecessor in interest under the Conditional Equity Agreement.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court requested the submission of competing proposed orders and took the decision under advisement, saying "I’m going to sign one of those orders y’all send me." Six weeks later on December 7, 2021, the county court signed the order submitted by Tenants, verbatim with no changes, denying Landlord’s motion for costs and attorney’s fees based on non-compliance with the Conditional Equity Agreement. Landlord filed a timely, motion for rehearing from that order, reasserting its opposition to consideration of the Conditional Equity Agreement and arguing that the court erred by its verbatim adoption of Tenants’ proposed order, citing Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2004).² On June 22, 2022, the trial court entered its order denying Landlord’s motion for rehearing essentially adopting Tenants’ arguments that Landlord had impermissibly sought a re-hearing of a re-hearing and that the motion was legally insufficient for failing to sufficiently point out matters the trial court had overlooked. Landlord timely appealed the order denying its motion for rehearing and the order denying its motion for attorney’s fees and costs.³

Propriety of Landlord’s Motion for Rehearing

Contrary to the Tenants’ arguments and the county court’s ruling, the Landlord’s motion for rehearing following the December 7, 2021 order was permissible and authorized. Tenants argued below and on appeal that the remand to county court by the circuit court appellate panel for a more detailed order was itself a rehearing from which no further rehearing could properly be sought. As noted, the county court implicitly adopted that position. Tenants then argued that Landlord’s appeal of that order was untimely as it was not commenced within thirty days of the order denying fees and costa, even though the notice of appeal was filed within thirty days of the order denying rehearing.

[1] Successive motions for rehearing are indeed not authorized by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Fla. Organic Aquaculture, LLC v. Advent Env’t Sys., LLC, 268 So. 3d 910, 9,12 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).

[2, 3] However, this was not a situation involving successive motions for rehearing. Instead, the circuit court had remanded the matter to the county court for further proceedings. Those proceedings were held, and a new final order was rendered by the county court. By rule and case law, in most instances a party seeking review of a matter first appearing in a final order is initially obligated to seek review by rehearing prior to appealing. See Kawsar v. Alhamdi Grp., LLC, 369 So. 3d 1227, 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023) (Eisnaugle, J., concurring) (citing Williams v. Williams, 152 So. 3d 702, 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)). The county court’s December 7, 2021 order denying Landlord’s motion for fees and costs was a final order, ending judicial labor in the case. M.M. v. Fla. Dep’t of Child. & Fems., 189 So. 3d 134, 137 (Fla. 2016); Mills v. Martinez, 909 So. 2d 340, 342 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Accordingly, Landlord’s motion for rehearing addressing the December 7, 2021 order was appropriate and its notice of appeal was timely filed following the county court’s rendition of the order denying that motion for rehearing.

Landlord’s Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees

In its complaint, Landlord prayed generally for an award of attorney’s fees and costs which request was supported by the lease which was an attached exhibit to that complaint. This Court has held that a "general request … is sufficient, and that the failure to plead the specific statutory or contractual basis for such a claim does not result in waiver." Sheoah Highlands, Inc. v. Daugherty, 837 So. 2d 579, 584 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); accord Parker v. Bd. of Trs. of the City Pension Fund for Fire-fighters & Police Officers in the City of Tampa, 149 So. 3d 1129, 1134 (Fla. 2014).

[4, 5] Landlord’s suggestion that it obtained the equivalent of a default final judgment against Tenants, which entitled it to attorney’s...