Trident Real Estate, Inc. v. Sonny & Ricardo, LLC, et al.

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed December 3, 2025.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-0116
Lower Tribunal No. 23-27703-CA-01
________________
Trident Real Estate, Inc. ,
Appellant,
vs.
Sonny & Ricardo, LLC, et al. ,
Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne del
Rio, Judge.
Barakat + Bossa PLLC, and Jocelyne A. Macelloni, and Ali S. Iftikhar,
for appellant.
BergaLaw, P.A., and Christopher G. Berga, for appellees.
Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and GOODEN, JJ.
LINDSEY, J

2
Appellant, Trident Real Estate, Inc. appeals the Final Default Judgment
entered in favor of Appellee, Sonny & Ricardo, LLC. Because Sonny’s
Complaint does not plead a specific damages amount, there is no agreement
by the Parties, and the damages for fraud and misrepresentation cannot be
ascertained 	by 	arithmetical 	calculation 	or 	by 	an 	application 	of 	legal
principles, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the amount
of damages to be awarded.
This is a landlord-tenant dispute. Sonny, the tenant, sued Trident for
fraudulent 	inducement, 	fraudulent 	misrepresentation, 	and 	negligent
misrepresentation. Trident failed to answer these claims, so the clerk
entered its Default. The trial court later entered its Final Default Judgment
awarding 	Sonny 	liquidated 	damages 	based 	solely 	on 	an 	affidavit 	of
damages attached to Sonny’s Motion for Final Default Judgment. This timely
appeal followed.
The review of the entry of a default final judgment is under abuse of
discretion. Azure-Moore Invs. LLC v. Hoyen, 300 So. 3d 1268, 1270 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2020). “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); Miami Beverly LLC

3
v. City of Miami, 225 So. 3d 989, 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (citing Watson v.
Internet Billing Co., 882 So. 2d 533, 534-35 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“Although
a default was entered against the appellants, they would still be entitled to
an evidentiary hearing if the amount of the damages were unliquidated.”));
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(d) (“In actions in which the damages are not liquidated,
the order setting an action for trial must be served on parties who are in
default . . . .”).
“Damages are liquidated when the amount to be awarded can be
determined 	with 	exactness 	from 	the 	cause 	of 	action 	as 	pled, 	by 	an
agreement 	by 	the 	parties, 	by 	an 	arithmetical 	calculation, 	or 	through
application of definite rules of law.” Miami Beverly LLC, 225 So. 3d at 992
(citations 	omitted). 	Damages 	are 	unliquidated 	when 	they 	“cannot 	be
ascertained without testimony or evidence of the appropriate monetary value
of these alleged damages.” Stamper v. Sahai, 318 So. 3d 1, 3 (Fla. 4th DCA
2021).
Sonny’s awarded damages cannot be ascertained with exactness and
are unliquidated. Cf. Miami Beverly LLC, 225 So. 3d at 992. Sonny’s
Complaint lacks any specific damages, nor is there any agreement by the
Parties on damages. The trial court also awarded damages by solely relying
on an unsubstantiated affidavit. The trial court did not (and could not)
ascertain damages by arithmetical calculation or through application of

4
definite rules of law. Id. Instead, it relied on evidence to make a value
judgment on what damages should be. Id.
As our courts have previously held, the trial court cannot—as it did
here—rely 	solely 	on 	Plaintiffs’ 	Affidavit 	of 	Damages 	to 	award 	Sonny
damages without affording Trident its due process rights. See DYC Fishing,
Ltd. v. Martinez, 994 So. 2d 461, 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“[T]he trial court
committed reversible error in relying solely on the Plaintiffs' affidavit of
damages in awarding unliquidated damages . . . .”); see also Yanofsky v.
Isaacs, 277 So. 3d 132, 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (“Here, the damages
sought in the complaint were not liquidated, and the court erred in relying
solely on Isaacs’s damages affidavit.”).
Thus, Sonny’s damages are unliquidated because they “cannot be
ascertained without testimony or evidence of the appropriate monetary value
of these alleged damages.” Stamper, 318 So. 3d at 3. Accordingly, we
reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the amount of damages to
be awarded with notice to the Parties.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.