County Civil Court: CIVIL PROCEDURE –
Default – Service of Process – Default is improper where service is faulty;
final judgment should not be entered without proper hearing to determine unliquidated
damages – Reversed and Remanded. Keown v. Youngclaus, Case No. 09-AP-000010-WS (Fla.
6th Cir. App. Ct. July 23, 2010).
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME
EXPIRES FOR REHEARING AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF
FLORIDA, IN AND FOR PASCO COUNTY
APPELLATE DIVISION
STEVE KEOWN and
HOLLY KEOWN
Appellants,
UCN: 512009AP000010XXXXWS
v. Case
No: AP-2009-000010-WS
Lower
No: 51-2009-SC-2510-WS
DAVID YOUNGCLAUS,
Appellee.
______________________________/
Appeal
from Pasco County Court
County
Judge Candy VanDercar
Holly
Keown, pro se
for
Appellants
David
Youngclaus, pro se
for
Appellee
ORDER
AND OPINION
Appellants
argue that they were denied their due process rights in a small claims
action. We find that the default against
Appellants was entered upon faulty service, and the final judgment was
improperly entered. This Court reverses
and remands this case to the lower court as set forth below.
FACTUAL
BACKGROUND
On January 3, 2009, Appellants were
on Appellee’s boat with their dogs (Appellants had one dog and Appellee had
another). They secured both dogs inside
the cabin of Appellee’s boat for about an hour while they went to lunch. When they returned, Appellee allegedly
discovered a hole in the vinyl. Both
parties disputed whose dog did the damage, as it would be impossible to
determine which dog was the culprit.
Appellee filed a Statement of Claim
against Appellants, on July 7, 2009, seeking
$1,491.59 for the total cost to repair the vinyl tear. Appellants inadvertently e-mailed Pinellas
County informing the Small Claims Division that they were out of state and
inquired whether they should file an answer in response to the claim. The Small Claims Division in Pinellas County
responded that an answer was unnecessary and that they could appear at the
pre-trial conference telephonically by written request. Whoever responded from Pinellas County did
not indicate that Appellants were conversing with the wrong county court. Appellants apparently sent their written
request to Pinellas County. Consequently,
Appellant did not appear at the pre-trial conference, on August 6, 2009. The trial court entered a final judgment of
$1,491.59 plus interest.
On
August 25, 2009, Appellants filed a motion for new trial, arguing that they
mailed a written request to appear telephonically (as directed by the e-mail),
on July 23, 2009, and would like an opportunity to defend their case. The trial court denied Appellants’ motion for
new trial because they had no record of Appellants’ July 23, 2009 letter or any
personal request for a telephonic hearing.
Subsequently, Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration, wherein
Appellants’ attached bank card statements to prove that they had purchased
postage for their July 23, 2009 letter and that they made a purchase in West
Virginia on the pre-trial hearing date, which was not considered by the trial
court. The trial court also denied
Appellants’ motion for reconsideration.
LAW
AND ANALYSIS
Appellants
argue that Steve Keown was never properly served in this case. The trial court record, which an appellate
court may consider, reveals that Steve Keown was served by substitute service
on his wife, Holly Keown, pursuant to Florida Statute 48.031(2)(a). Florida Statute 48.031(2)(a) only allows
substitute service on a spouse if (1) the action is not an adversary action between
the spouses; (2) the spouse requests such service; and (3) if the spouse and
the person to be served are residing together in the same dwelling. Appellants have raised the issue of service
by alleging that Steve Keown was living in West Virginia when service was
attempted in July of 2009. Even if substitute
service was requested, which the record does not indicate, the substitute
service appears improper since they were not residing together in the same
dwelling. If the evidence supports that
any of the three elements were not met, then service was not proper. Therefore, this case must be remanded for an
appropriate hearing to determine whether Steve Keown was properly served and
whether he had submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.
Appellants
also challenge the awarded damages. According
to Small Claims Rule 7.170(a), if a defendant fails to appear at the pre-trial
conference, the plaintiff is entitled to a default. After default is entered, the judge shall
receive evidence establishing the damages and enter judgment in accordance with
the evidence and the law. Small Claims
Rule 7.170(b). In this case, however,
the small claims court erred by only entering a final judgment. Thus, even had the service upon Appellant
been proper, this cause would still require reversal.
A
plaintiff must provide the defendant with notice of hearing on unliquidated
damages in cases where plaintiff seeks an entry of final judgment under Florida
Small Claims Rule 7.170. The defaulting
party has a due process right to notice and an opportunity to be heard as to
evidence presented to aid the judiciary and determine the amount of
unliquidated damages,[1] such as repair costs of
the vinyl tear. See, First Union National Bank of Florida v. Phillips, 4
Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 615b (15th Judicial Circuit, March 6,
1997). There is nothing in the rule or
its commentary which would eliminate a defendant’s due process right to receive
notice and hearing concerning the court’s determination of unliquidated
damages. Id. Appellants were completely denied their due
process rights as they never received any notice of hearing—nor was a hearing
even held.
In
small claims, the judge must receive evidence establishing the damages. Florida Small Claims Rule 7.170(b). In CACV of Colorado v. DeWolf, 15 Fla.
L. Weekly Supp. 27a (15th Judicial Circuit, November 13, 2007), the
court stated that
In the small claims context, this rule
makes sense. Many small claims cases are
brought by people without the benefit of counsel. Though a statement may state a claim, either
specific items of damage or the manner in which damages are calculated may be
in error. To minimize the possibility of abuse, then,
whether intentional or inadvertent, the Florida Supreme Court requires evidence
of damages to support a final judgment in small claims cases, not just where
unliquidated damages are claimed, not just where a plaintiff is unrepresented,
and even if a default has been entered. See In re: Amendment to The Florida Small
Claims Rules, 785 So. 2d 401, 402 (Fla. 2000)(purpose of Florida Small
Claims Rules is to create “a system that is open and helpful to those that
appear in small claims court, many of whom appear pro se and are unfamiliar
with legal proceedings…”) (emphasis added).
Here,
the small claims court did not issue a default, or consider evidence of damages
to support the final judgment, but simply entered a final judgment with the
exact amount Appellee claimed in his Statement of Claim. The small claims court did not consider whether
Appellee’s damages claim was sufficient.
More importantly, Appellants were never given an opportunity to refute
and challenge the evidence of damages.
Therefore, Appellants were denied their due process right to receive
notice and opportunity to be heard on any portion of the claim which is
unliquidated. The entry of the final
judgment in this case constituted fundamental error. See,
Sargent v. Williams, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 346a (20th
Judicial Circuit, December 7, 2007).
Based
upon the ostensibly faulty service and improper entry of a final judgment, this
cause must be reversed and remanded. On
remand, the small claims court shall ensure that all parties receive proper
service for the new pretrial conference.
If Appellants fail to appear at the pretrial conference, then a default shall
be entered against them. Appellants
would then be entitled to proper notice of a separate hearing to determine the
amount of any unliquidated damages.
Appellant would have the right to challenge these damages. In the alternative, if after trial the small
claims court determines that damages should be awarded, then evidence still
must be received to establish these damages.
In no case should a small claims court award damages without evidence to
support them in the final judgment. Therefore,
it is
ORDERED
AND ADJUDGED that this cause is REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
DONE
AND ORDERED in Chambers, at New Port Richey, Pasco County, Florida this 23rd
day of July 2010.
Original
order entered on July 19, 2010 by Circuit Judges Stanley R. Mills, W. Lowell
Bray, Jr., and Daniel D. Diskey.
[1] A default admits a plaintiff’s entitlements to liquidated damages due under the pleaded cause of action, but not unliquidated damages. Damages are liquidated when they can be determined with exactness from the cause of action as pleaded, by mathematical calculation, or the application of definite rules of law. Damages are unliquidated when their ascertainment requires the taking of testimony to ascertain facts upon which to base a value judgment. Hill v. Murphy, 872 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Bowman v. Kingsland Dev. Inc., 432 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).