Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Rafael Almendral, Appellant, v. J&C Property Management Corp., Appellee.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND CERTIFICATION
We deny the motion for rehearing and certification but withdraw our previous opinion and substitute the following opinion in its stead.
Rafael Almendral (“Tenant”) appeals a non-final order entered in favor of J & C Property Management Corporation (“Landlord”) requiring him to deposit rent into the court registry. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii). We affirm.
On appeal, the Tenant argues the trial court should have first ruled on his motion to dismiss before requiring a deposit into the court registry.
The plain language of section 83.232, Florida Statutes, mandates a rent deposit absent a “defense of payment or satisfaction of the rent.” § 83.232(1), Fla. Stat. “The court, on its own motion, shall notify the tenant of the requirement that rent be paid into the court registry by order, which shall be issued immediately upon filing of the tenant's initial pleading, motion, or other paper.” § 83.232(3), Fla. Stat. Because the plain language of section 83.232 makes a rent deposit mandatory absent a defense of payment or satisfaction of the rent, we find no error in requiring such a deposit before ruling on the motion to dismiss. See T.G. United, Inc. v. AADD Props., LLC, 371 So. 3d 396, 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023) (“Section 83.232 establishes a procedure for payment of rent during the pendency of a commercial landlord's claim for possession.”); § 83.232(1), Fla. Stat. (“In an action by the landlord which includes a claim for possession of real property, the tenant shall pay into the court registry the amount alleged in the complaint as unpaid, or if such amount is contested, such amount as is determined by the court, and any rent accruing during the pendency of the action, when due, unless the tenant has interposed the defense of payment or satisfaction of the rent in the amount the complaint alleges as unpaid.”); Fabre v. 4647 Block, LLC, 401 So. 3d 523, 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“Section 83.232 is designed to protect a commercial landlord from irreparable harm where a tenant holds over during eviction proceedings without paying rent.” (quoting Famsun Inv., LLC v. Therault, 95 So. 3d 961, 963 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012))).
Affirmed.
GORDO, J.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 3D24-2319
Decided: September 17, 2025
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)