Wayne C. Rickert D/B/A Crystal Lake Village v. Karen Valencia and Unknown Party in Possession

── Wayne C. Rickert D/B/A Crystal Lake Village v. Karen Valencia and Unknown Party in Possession ── Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Date: April 17, 2026 Category: General SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ Case No. 6D2024-2126 Lower Tribunal No. 2024-CC-000239 _____________________________ WAYNE C. RICKERT d/b/a CRYSTAL LAKE VILLAGE, Appellant, v. KAREN VALENCIA, et al., Appellees. _____________________________ Appeal from the County Court for Hardee County. David N. Horton, Judge. April 17, 2026 GANNAM, J. Wayne C. Rickert sued Karen Valencia and her daughter for possession of a lot in Rickert’s mobile home and RV park occupied by the Valencias, and obtained a default final judgment for possession of the lot. Rickert appeals the trial court’s orders setting aside the final judgment and dismissing his complaint. Because the Valencias did not timely file a motion to determine rent after service of Rickert’s complaint or pay their ongoing rent when due as alleged in the complaint, Rickert was entitled to the default judgment for possession. Accordingly, we reverse the orders dismissing the eviction complaint and setting aside Rickert’s final judgment and remand for further proceedings. I Rickert filed his eviction complaint on August 13, 2024, against his tenant, Karen Valencia, and her adult daughter, Erin Valencia. 1 According to the complaint, the Valencias occupy a recreational vehicle (RV) lot in Rickert’s mobile home and RV park, Crystal Lake Village, under an oral, month-to-month rental agreement. Rickert alleged the Valencias’ tenancy is subject to Chapter 83, Part II, Florida Statutes, the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, by operation of section 513.01, Florida Statutes, which is the definitional section of the chapter governing RV parks. Rickert alleged that the Valencias failed to pay their August rent in the amount of $500, that Rickert sent them the statutory three-day demand for payment of rent or possession under section 83.56, and that the Valencias failed to pay the past due rent. Rickert also alleged that rent of $500 would continue to be due monthly, beginning September 1, 2024. The Valencias, pro se, filed an answer on August 22, asking not to be evicted, but not denying any of the complaint allegations or 1 The complaint named as defendants Karen Valencia and an unknown tenant in possession, but Erin Valencia identified herself to the trial court as the other tenant. 2 requesting determination of the rent due. The Valencias paid $500 into the court registry when they filed their answer. On September 4, 2024, Rickert filed a motion for default final judgment of eviction, alleging the Valencias failed to pay the $500 rent due on September 1 into the court registry. On September 5, the Valencias paid $500 into the registry. On September 6, unaware of the Valencias’ payment, the trial court granted Rickert’s motion and entered a default final judgment, finding the Valencias failed to pay the September rent into the court registry when due and concluding Rickert was entitled to possession of the lot. The judgment ordered the Valencias to immediately relinquish possession to Rickert and the clerk to issue a writ of possession to the sheriff. The same day, however, having discovered the Valencias’ payment the day before, the trial court sua sponte entered an order setting aside the default final judgment, staying the writ of possession, and setting a hearing for September 9. The Valencias failed to appear at the September 9 hearing, so the trial court entered an order vaca