Ninoska D. Bracho Martinez v. Jonathan M. Morey

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: December 10, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-1250
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed December 10, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-1250 Lower Tribunal No. 24-56927-CC-05 ________________

Ninoska D. Bracho Martinez, Appellant,

vs.

Jonathan M. Morey, Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Jeffrey Rosinek, Senior Judge.

Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc., and James R. Glover and Jeffrey Hearne, for appellant.

No appearance, for appellee.

Before EMAS, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.

LOBREE, J.

Ninoska D. Bracho Martinez (“Bracho”) appeals a final judgment of eviction from her residence. Based on the record before us, we reverse

because the trial court prematurely entered final judgment without

addressing Bracho’s motion to determine rent.

The landlord, Jonathan M. Morey, filed an eviction complaint against

Bracho and her husband for failing to pay rent. Five days later, Bracho, then

self-represented, answered the complaint and filed a motion to determine

rent contending that she overpaid the rent. Less than a month later, Bracho

filed a letter with evidence she asserted supported her defense of payment.

Morey moved for default on the basis that Bracho had not paid the requested

rent into the court registry under section 83.60(2), Florida Statutes (2024).

This motion erroneously stated that no motion to determine rent had been

filed. The trial court issued a notice of special set Zoom/virtual hearing

scheduled for “Defendant’s Letter.” At that hearing, the trial court entered

final judgment of eviction.1 Bracho obtained counsel and moved for

rehearing and to vacate the final judgment. The trial court denied the motion.

On appeal, Bracho contends the trial court erred by entering final

judgment without ruling on her motion to determine rent, and that she was

1 We acknowledge the record contains no transcript of this hearing. Yet it is clear, even without the benefit of a transcript, that the trial court entered final judgment without consideration of the motion to determine rent as its order merely grants final judgment.

2 denied due process as the trial court entered the eviction final judgment at a

hearing noticed only for “Defendant’s Letter.”2 The record shows Bracho

timely filed her motion to determine rent and no order disposing of her motion

was entered. Under Florida law, an “undisposed-of motion to determine rent

preclude[s] entry of final judgment based on nonpayment.” Axen v. Poah

Cutler Manor, LLC, 323 So. 3d 800, 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021); see also Prince

v. MCR Apts. 1, LLC, 326 So. 3d 228, 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“[W]e

conclude the tenant’s motion for determination of rent, pending and

unresolved in the trial court, precluded entry of the judgment.”); Ramirez v.

Lopez, 357 So. 3d 1281, 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (reversing “the final

judgment of eviction in this landlord-tenant dispute because the trial court

should have set Tenant’s motion to determine rent for an evidentiary hearing

to resolve the disputed issue of how much rent Tenant should have

deposited into the court registry”). Therefore, the trial court erred in granting

the final judgment and we vacate the final judgment for eviction.3

2 Although Bracho has relocated after her eviction, we exercise our discretion to dispose of this appeal on the merits, because “the eviction can have collateral consequences for the Tenants when they seek to obtain housing or credit.” Ford v. Princeton Groves FL Apartments, 410 So. 3d 1272, 1277 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (quoting Alfonso v. Maiuri, 405 So. 3d 527, 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)). 3 Based on this disposition, we decline to reach the remaining argument.

3 Reversed and remanded.