HERNAN MILLAN v. YSAURA MARQUEZ

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 26, 2022
Docket20-1895
StatusPublished

This text of HERNAN MILLAN v. YSAURA MARQUEZ (HERNAN MILLAN v. YSAURA MARQUEZ) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
HERNAN MILLAN v. YSAURA MARQUEZ, (Fla. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed January 26, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1895 Lower Tribunal No. 19-5468 ________________

Hernan Millan, Appellant,

vs.

Ysaura Marquez, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Reemberto Diaz, Judge.

Tomas Kucera, P.A., and Tomas Kucera, for appellant.

Law Offices of Aaron Resnick, P.A., and Aaron R. Resnick, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, HENDON and GORDO, JJ.

GORDO, J. Hernan Millan appeals a default final judgment entered in favor of

Ysaura Marquez. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). We

affirm without further discussion on all issues save 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) (quoting Bowman v. Kingsland Dev., Inc., 432 So.

2d 660, 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)). Here, the trial court erred by awarding

Marquez unliquidated damages without affording Millan adequate notice and

an opportunity to be heard. 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.’” (quoting Viets v. Am. Recruiters Enters., Inc., 922 So. 2d 1090,

1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006))); Fiera.com, Inc. v. DigiCast New Media Grp.,

Inc., 837 So. 2d 451, 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (reversing a default final

judgment where extrinsic evidence was necessary to determine the amount

of damages, and no damages hearing was held); Whitehead v. Shutter

Hangers, Inc., 322 So. 3d 221, 221–22 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). We therefore

2 reverse the final default judgment to the extent it awarded unliquidated

damages and remand for a duly noticed trial or evidentiary hearing on the

same.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with instructions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fiera. Com, Inc. v. DigiCast New Media Group, Inc.
837 So. 2d 451 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Bowman v. Kingsland Development, Inc.
432 So. 2d 660 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Cellular Warehouse, Inc. v. GH CELLULAR
957 So. 2d 662 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Viets v. AREI
922 So. 2d 1090 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
DYC Fishing, Ltd. v. Martinez
994 So. 2d 461 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
HERNAN MILLAN v. YSAURA MARQUEZ, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernan-millan-v-ysaura-marquez-fladistctapp-2022.