WELSPRING INVESTMENTS v. FRANGI (2021)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.2021-09-15No. No. 3D20-1866

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's order vacating the damages award, holding that Welspring's money lent claim against Frangi involved unliquidated damages that required notice and an opportunity to be heard before assessment.

Welspring Investments appealed a trial court order that vacated a damages award against Simone Frangi, who had been defaulted. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the damages Welspring sought were unliquidated rather than liquidated. Because the damages could not be determined with exactness from the pleadings alone or through simple arithmetic, Frangi was entitled to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before damages could be assessed against him, as required by Florida civil procedure rules.

The court explained the legal distinction between liquidated and unliquidated damages. Liquidated damages can be calculated precisely from the face of the pleadings or through straightforward mathematical computation. By contrast, unliquidated damages require evidence to be presented at trial to determine the proper amount. When a defendant defaults, that default constitutes an admission of liability for liquidated damages only, not unliquidated damages. Consequently, even after a default judgment, a party asserting unliquidated damages must still proceed to trial and give the defaulting party a fair opportunity to defend.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Distinction between liquidated and unliquidated damages
Right to notice and hearing when unliquidated damages are at issue despite default
Whether damages can be determined with exactness from pleadings alone

Procedural posture

Welspring Investments appealed from a trial court order that vacated a damages award entered against the defaulted defendant Frangi.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Welspring Investments, S.A., appeals from a portion of an omnibus order vacating a damages award entered against Simone Frangi following entry of a default. We affirm the trial courts detailed, scholarly, and well-reasoned order concluding that the damages sought by Welspring are unliquidated, thus warranting notice and an opportunity to be heard pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(c).

“Where a default is entered, the defaulting party admits entitlement to liquidated damages, but not unliquidated damages. Damages are liquidated when the exact amount due may be determined from the pleadings. Where evidence must be presented to determine the amount, however, damages are unliquidated.” 1445 Wash. Ltd. Pship v. Lemontang, 19 So. 3d 1079, 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (citing Cellular Warehouse, Inc. v. GH Cellular, LLC, 957 So. 2d 662, 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Bowman v. Kingsland Dev., Inc., 432 So. 2d 660, 662–63 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)). Where an action involves unliquidated damages, “ ‘a party against whom default has been entered is entitled to notice of an order setting the matter for trial, and must be afforded an opportunity to defend.’ ” Cellular Warehouse, 957 So. 2d at 666 (quoting Viets v. American Recruiters Enters., Inc., 922 So. 2d 1090, 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)). The damages sought by Welspring for its money lent claim against Frangi are unliquidated because they cannot be “determined with exactness from the cause of action as pleaded, i.e., from a pleaded agreement between the parties, by an arithmetical calculation or by application of definite rules of law.” Id. at 665 (quoting Bowman, 432 So. 2d at 662).

Affirmed.

LOGUE, J.