Opinion
No. 2D22-914
06-14-2023
Ocnel METELLUS, Appellant, v. STORM RESTORATION SERVICES, LLC d/b/a Storm Restoration Services, Appellee.
Ocnel Metellus, pro se. Christopher Odgers and Jason S. Lambert of Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP, Tampa, for Appellee.
Ocnel Metellus, pro se.
Christopher Odgers and Jason S. Lambert of Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP, Tampa, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Ocnel Metellus challenges the default final judgment entered against him in the county court. After Mr. Metellus failed to appear for a November 2021 case management conference noticed to the parties only via email, the county court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff below, Storm Restoration Services, LLC. Mr. Metellus, appearing pro se, filed a motion for rehearing, alleging in relevant part that Storm Restoration Services had been using an incorrect email address for Mr. Metellus and that he had not received emails or mail from the court or Storm Restoration Services since July 2021. The court denied the motion in an unelaborated order.
Although the Florida Small Claims Rules do not provide for motions for rehearing, they do authorize motions for new trial. See Fla. Sm. Cl. R. 7.180 ; see also Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Parks , 338 So. 3d 1070, 1071 n.1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (citing Arafat v. U-Haul Center Margate , 82 So. 3d 903, 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), for the statement that a motion for rehearing would be treated as "an authorized and timely-filed motion for new trial permitted under the Florida Small Claims Rules of Court"). In his motion, Mr. Metellus alleged that Storm Restoration Services had been using an incorrect email address for Mr. Metellus and that he had not been receiving communications from the court or Storm Restoration Services. The record supports that an incorrect email address had been repeatedly used by Storm Restoration Services; however, while the notice of the November 2021 case management conference indicates that it was sent to the parties via email, it does not include the email addresses to which the court sent the notice.
Given these facts, the county court's summary denial of the motion was an abuse of discretion. See Fla. Sm. Cl. R. 7.180(b) (stating that on review of a motion for new trial, the court may do one of two things: summarily deny the motion or hold a hearing on it); cf . Massoud v. Stonehedge Residents, Inc. , 355 So. 3d 520, 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) (concluding that trial court abused its discretion in denying without a hearing a motion to set aside judgment based on due process violations); Yue Yan v. Byers , 88 So. 3d 392, 394 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (reversing final judgment and remanding for new trial where record affirmatively established that the appellant was not provided with sufficient notice of the trial). We therefore reverse the final judgment and remand with instructions for the county court to hold a duly noticed hearing on Mr. Metellus's motion. See Fla. Sm. Cl. R. 7.180(b).
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
VILLANTI, KHOUZAM, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.