Landlords may not realize just how many risks linger in the rental and property management business, especially when it comes to eviction actions. Reality is, risks are ever present for each step the landlord takes. While the Florida Residential Landlord-Tenant Act was designed to be expeditious (summary procedures) and prevent tenants from taking advantage of legal procedures to live in the rental property without paying back rent and rent that accrues during the pendency of an eviction action, the truth is, judges have a lot of power to make the statute of no or little effect depending on how they handle the action.
Muscella v. Johnson
There is a Florida eviction case that was filed in January 2024 in Broward County that highlights just how bad eviction cases can go when two elements are combined: a scrupulous tenant and a judge that does not properly apply Florida statutes and long-held case precedent. The case is Muscella v. Johnson, 062024CC000070 (Broward Co., 2024). The landlord was represented by counsel, Peter Sobota, and the two tenants represented themselves.
The landlord filed what should have been a simple eviction based on the tenants being holdover tenants. The lease agreement expired on December 31, 2023, but the tenants failed to vacate at the expiration of the lease, even after the landlord provided written notice to vacate 40 days prior to the end of the tenancy. The landlord alleged in the eviction complaint that the tenants owed double rent during the period of the holdover pursuant to F.S. 83.58. The tenants were served with summons on January 3, 2024, giving the tenants 5 days to do the following:
- file an answer to the complaint,
- post the back rent alleged to be owed in the Complaint, or file a motion to determine rent showing that the rent amount alleged in the complaint was in error, and
- post rent that accrues during the pendency of the action.
Legal Chaos Unleashed
On January 4, 2024, the tenants filed a 29-page motion to dismiss, which kicked off this eviction case from hell.
On January 5, 2024, the landlord filed a Motion to Strike the tenant’s answer and defenses and to enter a final judgment in the landlord’s favor. Essentially, the landlord’s motion was a “motion for final judgment on the pleadings”, because the tenants alleged nothing in their answer that would entitle the tenant to relief. The judge didn’t grant the landlord’s motion, which caused this case to proceed down its treacherous path.
The tenants began filing repetitious and capacious pleadings, all stating essentially the same thing over and over. On January 8, 2024, after the tenants’ answer and pleading deadline had expired, tenants filed a counterclaim alleging that the landlord owed them $100,000.00 in monetary damages and $2,000,000.00 in punitive damages because the landlord “retaliated” against the tenants allegedly, without having received leave of the court to file the untimely pleading.
The landlord filed a supplement motion to strike the tenants’ answer and defenses and for default and final judgment on January 11, 2024, alleging the factual basis in support of a final judgment in the landlord’s favor, most notably because the tenant failed to comply with F.S. 83.60(2) by failing to deposit the back rent owed into the court registry and filing a motion to determine rent showing that the back rent alleged was in error, but rather, only deposited $425.00 into the court registry, which was less than 1 month’s rent.
The tenant next filed another motion to “set aside” the landlord’s motion for final judgment. Without legal grounds, on January 22, 2024, the judge then ordered the parties to mediate within 15 days of the court’s order to mediate. The landlord requested that the court dispense with mediation, and immediately thereafter, on January 23, 2024, the tenant filed a counter-motion objecting to the landlord’s request to forego mediation. Of course, the landlord wanted these tenants out, and no mediation was going to resolve what the tenant was throwing at the landlord.
In the meantime, the tenant continued to file a plethora of motions and even filed written requests for admissions on the landlord, which is not permitted under F.S. 51.011 without permission from the court. To show just how scrupulous these tenants were in this case, on February 5, 2024, they filed with the clerk of court a proposed settlement wherein the landlord had to pay them $1,050,000 plus $25,000 in attorney’s fees (the tenants were not attorneys).
A landlord can only imagine dealing with this kind of tenant in a simple eviction lawsuit based on the tenant not vacating the premises on the date they had already agreed to vacate.
The court finally held a hearing on February 14, 2024 on the landlord’s motion to require the tenants to deposit back rent into the court registry and for default and final judgment. After the hearing, on February 15, 2024, the court entered a written order denying the landlord’s motion for judgment and ordering the tenants to pay $850 into the court registry on March 1, 2024 and the rent due date that accrues thereafter. Of course, the tenant’s obligation to post back and accrued rent had already been established by F.S. 83.60(2).
After the order was issued, the tenant filed a long series of motions and pleadings, which are too lengthy and numerous to discuss in this article, but suffice it to say, the landlord’s attorney clearly had to spent many, many hours dealing with the tenants’ tornado of filings and desperately trying to get the court to simply follow the law and stop the madness.
It must have become apparent to the landlord that the judge was not going to (or could not be trusted to) order a final judgment in her favor even though the tenant did not comply with F.S. 83.60(2), and as such, the landlord decided to file an interlocutory appeal to Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeals.
The Costly Consequences of County Court Errors
After losing hope in the county court’s judgment and putting the fate of the landlord’s case in the hands of the appellate court, the landlord filed a motion to stay all eviction proceedings in the county court to await the appellate court’s ruling on the issue of whether the county court committed reversible error by failing to grant the landlord final judgment when the tenant did not comply with F.S. 83.60(2).
Ultimately, after months of awaiting a decision, on July 3, 2024 the appellate court reversed the county court, ruling that the county court had no discretion not to grant final judgment in the landlord’s favor when the tenant failed to comply with F.S. 83.60(2). The landlord, of course, was right all along.
The county court should have never allowed the tenant to remain in possession of the rental unit when they failed to comply with F.S. 83.60(2), but the damage had already been done, and were it not for the landlord filing an appeal to the 4th DCA, the landlord may have met further challenges and obstacles in the county court.
Just a glance at the clerk of court’s case record shows how the landlord suffered in this case. The landlord’s attorney fees alone cost this landlord many thousands of dollars. And guess what, there is no way the landlord is going to recoup those fees and costs from the tenants. This is a total loss for the landlord.
Lessons from the Muscella Eviction Case
If any lesson can be learned from this eviction case from hell it is that landlords must use proper and due diligence to screen rental applicants—and even then, that may not be enough to avoid this kind of bombshell. By treating the application process too lightly, landlords are setting themselves for future disaster. There are more and more “career” litigating tenants who are just looking for the opportunity to do what these tenants did in the Muscella eviction.
The Muscella case also highlights the importance of always having a landlord attorney on your side–not just when it’s time to file an eviction. There are too many issues and pitfalls in the rental business not to have an expert landlord attorney assisting landlords in making the right decisions and incorporating proper procedures in their daily rental business operations.
Property Management Law Solutions, LLC is a Florida law firm that specializes in landlord-tenant law and is a landlord-only law firm. We provide statewide services including evictions, consultation plans, education and training, membership plans, lease agreement plans and more. If you are a landlord or property manager, contact us today or subscribe to one of our online membership plans.