Ninoska D. Bracho Martinez v. Jonathan M. Morey

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Chird 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 Tuobunal 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, J effrey
Rosinek, Senior J udge.

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

No appearance, for appellee.

Before EMAS, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.
LOBREE, J.

Ninoska D. Bracho Martinez (“Bracho”) appeals a final judgment of

2
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.

3
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.

Reversed and remanded.
4