MILLAN v. MARQUEZ (2022)

Hernan Millan appeals a default final judgment entered in favor of Ysaura Marquez. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). We affirm without further discussion on all issues save one. “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) (quoting Bowman v. Kingsland Dev., Inc., 432 So. 2d 660, 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)). Here, the trial court erred by awarding Marquez unliquidated damages without affording Millan adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. 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))); Fiera.com, Inc. v. DigiCast New Media Grp., Inc., 837 So. 2d 451, 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (reversing a default final judgment where extrinsic evidence was necessary to determine the amount of damages, and no damages hearing was held); Whitehead v. Shutter Hangers, Inc., 322 So. 3d 221, 221–22 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). We therefore reverse the final default judgment to the extent it awarded unliquidated damages and remand for a duly noticed trial or evidentiary hearing on the same.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with instructions.

GORDO, J.