Blackmon-Patterson v. Van Diepen · No. 1D2025-2879 (Fla. 1st DCA) · Decided October 7, 2026
More analysis may follow as additional information is received and reviewed. Sign up for alerts.
A residential tenant who fails to deposit past-due rent into the court registry loses on the landlord’s claim for possession, but that failure does not entitle the landlord to judgment on a separate claim for damages, the First District Court of Appeal has held. The court affirmed an Escambia County judgment for possession but reversed a $7,800 damages judgment and remanded for the damages claim to be separately adjudicated.
What Happened
Russell Van Diepen and his wife co-own a single-family residence that they leased to Chaudra Blackmon-Patterson. Van Diepen filed a residential eviction action, and the tenant did not timely deposit the required past-due rent into the court registry. The trial court entered a final judgment for possession and awarded Van Diepen a $7,800 judgment for damages, ruling that the tenant “failed to deposit rent monies into the court registry . . . to qualify for a trial in this case.”
The tenant had moved to dismiss on the ground that Van Diepen’s wife, who was not a party, was an indispensable party. The trial court denied the motion.
What the Court Held
Possession. Under section 83.60(2), Florida Statutes, the tenant’s failure to pay the accrued rent into the registry entitled the landlord to “an immediate default judgment for removal of the tenant with a writ of possession to issue without further notice or hearing thereon.” The same statute provides that nonpayment “constitutes an absolute waiver of the tenant’s defenses other than payment,” and the court held that the tenant’s failure to deposit the rent waived the indispensable-party defense “at least with respect to the judgment for possession.” The court affirmed the default judgment for possession.
Damages. The registry deposit provisions in section 83.60(2), the court explained, apply only to “an action by the landlord for possession of a dwelling unit,” not to an action for damages. The court relied on decisions from other districts, including First Hanover v. Vazquez, 848 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Zambrano v. Quintana, 435 So. 3d 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026); Famsun Invest, LLC v. Therault, 95 So. 3d 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); and Premici v. United Growth Properties, L.P., 648 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). In a footnote, the court acknowledged that the cases it relied on applied the statutory provisions governing nonresidential tenancies, section 83.232(5), but found them persuasive because both statutes similarly provide for an immediate default for “possession” when rent is not paid into the registry.
Agreeing with those districts, the court concluded that the tenant’s failure to deposit the rent “did not entitle Van Diepen to judgment on his damages claim.” The damages claim “must be separately adjudicated by the trial court,” and in doing so the trial court “may consider any defenses properly raised by Tenant, about which we express no opinion.”
Why It Matters
The First District joined the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Districts in treating a registry-deposit default as resolving only possession, and it applied that rule to residential tenancies under section 83.60(2). The decision did not resolve whether the tenant’s indispensable-party defense or any other defense succeeds against the damages claim; the court left that to the trial court on remand. The opinion lists no appearance for the landlord in the appeal.
The Opinion
Download the full opinion (PDF)
| Court | First District Court of Appeal |
| Case No. | 1D2025-2879 |
| Lower Court | County Court, Escambia County (Judge Barry E. Dickson, Jr.) |
| Opinion by | Per curiam (Roberts, Winokur, and Treadwell, JJ.) |
| Decided | October 7, 2026 |
| Result | Affirmed in part (judgment for possession); reversed in part (judgment for damages) and remanded |