Angel Guillermo Zambrano v. Alberto Quintana

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: June 24, 2026
• Docket: 3D2025-0177
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed June 24, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-0177 Lower Tribunal No. 24-248493-CC-24 ________________

Angel Guillermo Zambrano, Appellant,

vs.

Alberto Quintana, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Stephanie Silver, Judge.

Angel Guillermo Zambrano, in proper person.

Arturo R. Alfonso, P.A., and Arturo R. Alfonso, for appellees.

Before LOGUE, LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ.

LOBREE, J. In this residential eviction case, Angel Guillermo Zambrano (the

“tenant"), appeals from orders of the trial court striking his pleadings and

entering a default final judgment of possession in favor of Alberto Quintana

(the landlord”), without adjudicating the tenant’s affirmative defenses and

counterclaims. The tenant contends that he lawfully withheld rent based on

the landlord’s non-compliance with statutory duties and terms of the parties’

contract, and that the trial court erred by granting possession to the landlord

based on his retaliatory conduct. The tenant further contests orders striking

his pleadings and counterclaims as moot and striking his jury trial demands.

We affirm in part as to the orders striking the tenant’s affirmative defenses

and rendering a default final judgment of possession in favor of the landlord

and reverse in part as to the orders striking the tenant’s counterclaims and

demands for jury trial for the reasons below.

BACKGROUND

The parties entered into a residential lease agreement for an

apartment unit within a condominium building. The tenant sent notices to

the landlord seeking repairs of the building elevator and unit air conditioning.

Repairs were performed, but the parties dispute their extent and timing.

Afterward, a thirty-day notice to vacate the premises was posted at the

property and mailed to the tenant, reflecting the landlord’s intent to terminate

2 the parties’ month-to-month lease upon listing the property for sale.

Then the landlord filed a complaint seeking only to terminate the lease

and evict the tenant from the premises. The tenant answered, raised twelve

affirmative defenses and eleven counterclaims, and sought a hearing on his

motion to determine rent. The trial court heard the motion to determine rent

and ordered that the tenant deposit $7,200 into the registry of the court. After

the tenant’s failure to comply with the registry payment, the landlord moved

to strike the tenant’s pleadings and for entry of a default final judgment of

possession. The trial court granted the motion, struck the tenant’s pleadings

and entered a default final judgment of possession, concluding that the

tenant’s counterclaim was moot.

The tenant responded by requesting a trial by jury, which the landlord

moved to strike. The next day, the court struck the tenant’s request for a jury

trial, concluding that the tenant did not demand a jury trial in his answer and

counterclaim. The tenant renewed his demand for a jury trial on all claims

and counterclaims, which was again stricken by the trial court based on the

tenant’s failure to comply with the court’s rent order. Even so, the trial court

further ordered the landlord to file a responsive pleading to the counterclaim.

This appeal follows.

3 ANALYSIS

The tenant first contends that he lawfully withheld rent based on the

landlord’s non-compliance with his statutory duties and the terms of the

parties’ lease, and that the trial court erred by granting possession to the

landlord based on his retaliatory conduct. The landlord’s answer argues that

the tenant’s failure to pay rent into the court registry constitutes an absolute

waiver of the tenant’s defenses, citing to section 83.232(5), Florida Statutes

(2025). While this statute does not apply to residential tenancies, we

nonetheless reject the tenant’s contentions, as section 83.60(2), Florida

Statutes (2025), similarly provides that in an action by a landlord for

possession of a dwelling unit, if a tenant interposes any defense other than

payment, the tenant must pay into the court registry the accrued rent as

alleged in the complaint, and any rent accruing during the pendency of the

proceeding, when due. Failure to pay rent into the registry, after the trial

court enters an order on a motion to determine the amount of rent,

constitutes an absolute waiver of a tenant’s defenses other than payment,

and a landlord is entitled to an immediate default judgment for removal with

a writ of possession. Id. Section 83.60(2) is not discretionary, and compels

payment of rent into the court registry even if a tenant has counterclaims

pending. See Kaufman v. High Seas, LLC, 383 So. 3d 509, 511 (Fla. 4th

4 DCA 2024) (citing First Hanover v. Vazquez, 848 So. 2d 1188, 1190 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2003)). Thus, we affirm the default final judgment of possession in

favor of the landlord and orders striking the tenant’s affirmative defenses

based on the tenant’s failure to pay rent into the registry of the trial court as

ordered after a hearing on the tenant’s motion to determine rent.

The tenant further contests orders striking his pleadings and

counterclaims as moot1 and striking his jury trial demands. The landlord’s

answer offers no authority for its argument that the striking of the tenant’s

counterclaims as moot was proper. In Vazquez, our court adopted the

analysis of the Fifth District in K.D. Lewis Enterprises Corp. v. Smith, 445 So.

2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), holding that the deposit requirement imposed

by section 83.60 applied only to actions for possession, not to actions

involving counterclaims for injunctive relief and damages. 848 So. 2d at

1190–91. Thus, the striking of the counterclaims as moot based solely on

failure to comply with section 83.60(2) was error. Accordingly, we reverse

with directions to reinstate the tenant’s counterclaims and direct the landlord

to file a responsive pleading to them. As a demand for a jury trial must be

1 We note that the trial court’s orders on this issue are contradictory. The trial court initially struck the tenant’s pleadings and adjudged that the counterclaim (singular) was moot. Later, in its order striking the tenant’s jury trial request, the trial court included an order that the landlord shall file a responsive pleading to the counterclaim. No such pleading has been filed.

5 served in writing no later than ten days after service of the last pleading

directed to the issue, see Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.430(b), and no

responsive pleading has been filed to date, we likewise reverse the orders

striking the jury trial demand as procedurally improper. See Johnson v.

Kannwischer, 477 So. 2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).2

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded for further

proceedings consistent herewith.

2 As in Johnson, we do not address which of the numerous potential issues here should be tried by a jury, which is a matter for the trial court and not properly before us on appeal.