LEVI WHITEHEAD v. SHUTTER HANGERS, INC., etc. ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •        Third District Court of Appeal
    State of Florida
    Opinion filed July 7, 2021.
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    ________________
    No. 3D20-1567
    Lower Tribunal No. 18-42221
    ________________
    Levi Whitehead,
    Appellant,
    vs.
    Shutter Hangers, Inc., etc., et al.,
    Appellees.
    An appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
    County, Veronica Diaz, Judge.
    Harris Appeals, P.A., and Andrew A. Harris (Palm Beach Gardens);
    Lawlor & Associates, and Patrick W. Lawlor (Boca Raton), for appellant.
    Locke Law, P.A., and Wendell T. Locke (Plantation), for appellees.
    Before LINDSEY, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.
    MILLER, J.
    Appellant, Levi Whitehead, challenges a non-final order denying his
    motion to set aside a judicial default and default final judgment entered in
    favor of appellees, Shutter Hangers, Inc. and Wendell Locke. We affirm
    without further discussion on all issues but one. “It is well settled that a
    defaulting party ‘has a due process entitlement to notice and opportunity to
    be heard as to the presentation and evaluation of evidence necessary to a
    judicial determination of the amount of unliquidated damages.’” Cellular
    Warehouse, Inc. v. GH Cellular, LLC, 
    957 So. 2d 662
    , 666 (Fla. 3d DCA
    2007) (citations omitted). Here, the lower tribunal awarded unliquidated
    damages without affording adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.
    Thus, we reverse the order denying relief from the final default judgment to
    the extent it awarded unliquidated damages and remand for a duly noticed
    trial or evidentiary hearing on the same. See DYC Fishing, Ltd. v. Martinez,
    
    994 So. 2d 461
    , 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“When unliquidated damages must
    be determined as a result of a default, the defaulting party ‘is entitled to notice
    of an order setting the matter for trial, and must be afforded an opportunity
    to defend.’”) (citation omitted); see also J.G.G. v. M.S., 
    312 So. 3d 509
    , 511
    (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (“Procedural due process requires that litigants be given
    proper notice and a full and fair opportunity to be heard. To be sufficient,
    notice must be ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to
    2
    apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an
    opportunity to present their objections. The notice must . . . convey the
    required information, and it must afford a reasonable time for those
    interested to make their appearance.’”) (quoting De Leon v. Collazo, 
    178 So. 3d 906
    , 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co.,
    
    339 U.S. 306
    , 314 (1950)).
    Reversed and remanded.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-1567

Filed Date: 7/7/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/7/2021