AT HOME CARE LLC v. CARHART (2021)

Appellant, Christie Samoville, challenges a final judgment rendered in favor of appellee, Owen Carhart. We affirm without further discussion on all issues save one. We conclude the lower tribunal erred in awarding Carhart unliquidated damages in the absence of proof of the same adduced at a properly noticed evidentiary hearing.¹ 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)); Cellular Warehouse, Inc. v. GH Cellular, LLC, 957 So. 2d 662, 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“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.’ ”) (quoting Bowman v. Kingsland Dev., Inc., 432 So. 2d 660, 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)); Petrovsky v. HSBC Bank, USA, 185 So. 3d 700, 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (Damages that “are not liquidated damages ․ require a hearing. Absent an evidentiary hearing, the ․ award will be reversed for a hearing unless there is an indication that the right to a hearing was waived.”) (citations omitted). We therefore reverse the final default judgment to the extent it awarded unliquidated damages and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Carhart argues the damages were derived from an earlier hearing that yielded a subsequently vacated judgment. The disparity between the damages reflected in the earlier judgment and those awarded here, however, precludes such a conclusion.

MILLER, J.