Default judgments and damage awards sound technical, but they sit right in the middle of real-world risk for Florida businesses and commercial landlords. When a company misses a response deadline and a clerk’s default is entered, many plaintiffs assume they can simply file an affidavit, plug in a number, and walk out of court with a final judgment for whatever amount they claim. The Third District’s recent decision in Trident Real Estate, Inc. v. Sonny & Ricardo, LLC, No. 3D25-0116 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 3, 2025), makes clear that Florida law does not work that way when the damages are unliquidated.
Trident Real Estate arose out of a landlord–tenant dispute. Sonny & Ricardo, LLC, the tenant, sued Trident Real Estate, Inc. for fraudulent inducement, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. Trident did not answer the complaint, a clerk’s default was entered, and the trial court later entered a final default judgment in Sonny’s favor. Critically, the court awarded what it labeled “liquidated damages” based solely on an affidavit of damages attached to Sonny’s motion for final default judgment, without holding an evidentiary hearing.
On appeal, the Third District reversed and remanded. The court held that because Sonny’s complaint did not plead a specific damages amount, there was no agreement between the parties on damages, and the fraud and misrepresentation damages could not be determined by arithmetic or by straightforward application of legal principles, the damages were unliquidated. As a result, Trident was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the amount of damages, even though it was in default on liability.
The Third District did not create a new rule. It applied and reaffirmed settled Florida law. Citing Cellular Warehouse, Inc. v. GH Cellular, LLC, Miami Beverly LLC v. City of Miami, and Watson v. Internet Billing Co., the court emphasized that a defaulting party has a due process right to notice and an opportunity to be heard on the presentation and evaluation of evidence necessary for a judicial determination of unliquidated damages. The opinion also pointed back to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(d), which expressly requires that, in actions where damages are not liquidated, the order setting the case for trial must be served on parties in default.
The key distinction running through Trident and the earlier cases is the line between liquidated and unliquidated damages. The Third District adopted the standard articulated in Miami Beverly: damages are liquidated when the amount to be awarded can be determined with exactness from the cause of action as pled, by an agreement of the parties, by an arithmetic calculation, or through the application of definite rules of law. If a claim fits that description, a court may be able to enter a default final judgment for a sum certain based on the complaint, contract, and supporting affidavits.
By contrast, damages are unliquidated when they cannot be determined without testimony or other evidence establishing the proper monetary value of the loss. Tort-based claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and similar business torts often fall into this category. So do many claims for lost profits, damage to business reputation, and other forms of consequential harm. As the Third District noted in Trident, Sonny’s complaint did not set out a specific figure, there was no damages agreement, and the trial court could not simply run a calculation or apply a fixed formula. Instead, the court was required to make a “value judgment” based on evidence. That is the hallmark of unliquidated damages, and in that posture a defaulting defendant is still entitled to a hearing.
The Third District also tied its holding to a line of prior appellate decisions reversing default judgments where trial courts awarded unliquidated damages based solely on a plaintiff’s affidavit. The opinion cites DYC Fishing, Ltd. v. Martinez, where the court held it was reversible error to rely exclusively on the plaintiffs’ affidavit to award unliquidated damages after default, and Yanofsky v. Isaacs, where the Fourth District reached the same conclusion. It also cited Stamper v. Sahai from the Fourth District for the proposition that damages are unliquidated when they cannot be ascertained without testimony or evidence of value. In other words, Trident confirms that this is not a new doctrine. There is a solid, multi-district body of law in Florida enforcing the same due process requirement.
For commercial landlords and business owners, the takeaway is straightforward. A default on liability is not a blank check on damages. Where the claimed damages are truly liquidated, such as a fixed amount of past-due base rent that can be calculated directly from the lease and rent ledger, a Florida trial court may enter a default final judgment based on the papers. Where the damages are unliquidated, the plaintiff must be prepared to prove the amount at an evidentiary hearing, and the defaulting defendant retains the right to participate in that hearing, present evidence, and cross-examine witnesses.
In the landlord–tenant context, Trident is particularly important. Many commercial landlord cases are not pure unpaid-rent suits. Complaints often include counts for fraudulent inducement, misrepresentation regarding build-out, promises about exclusivity or co-tenancy, or other tort claims layered on top of the lease. The damages associated with those claims are rarely simple arithmetic. They frequently involve alleged lost profits, fit-out costs, and other categories that require judgment and proof. Trident signals that courts should not treat such damages as “liquidated” simply because the plaintiff uses that label in a motion.
From the plaintiff’s perspective, this means that when a case involves unliquidated damages and a defendant defaults, the next step is not to draft a one-page proposed judgment and attach an affidavit with a large round number. It is to prepare for a focused evidentiary hearing on damages. That preparation includes identifying the specific categories of loss, organizing source documents, and lining up any testimony or expert opinion needed to connect the dots between the defendant’s conduct and the claimed monetary harm. Trident, read together with Cellular Warehouse, Miami Beverly, DYC Fishing, Yanofsky, and Stamper, makes clear that appellate courts will scrutinize default damage awards where this process is skipped.
From the defense side, Trident provides a clear roadmap for limiting exposure even after a default. A business that discovers a default judgment process underway should immediately analyze whether the damages sought are liquidated or unliquidated under the Miami Beverly/Stamper standard. If they are unliquidated, the defendant can insist on its right to notice and an evidentiary hearing under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(d) and the cases cited in Trident. At that hearing, the defendant may not be able to relitigate liability, but it can test the plaintiff’s proof, challenge assumptions, and offer its own evidence to show that the claimed damages are inflated, speculative, or unsupported.
The decision also has implications beyond landlord–tenant disputes. Any Florida business case involving defaults and unliquidated damages fits within the same framework. Claims for fraud in the sale of a business, negligent advice by a consultant, interference with a key contract, or misuse of confidential information can all give rise to default judgments if a defendant fails to respond. Under Trident and the line of cases it cites, those defaults do not entitle plaintiffs to untested affidavits becoming final judgments on complex damage theories. They trigger the need for an evidentiary hearing, with the defaulting party still at the table on the damages issue.
In practice, the Trident decision is a reminder that courts care about process as much as they care about outcomes. The Third District reversed not because it disagreed with the trial court’s sense of fairness, but because the court bypassed the required hearing and relied entirely on a one-sided affidavit to set unliquidated damages. For business clients, that is good news. It means that there is meaningful precedent, and a current appellate decision applying it, to prevent plaintiffs from converting defaults into oversized judgments without a real evidentiary check.
For commercial landlords, property managers, and operating businesses, the practical call to action is simple. Take service of process seriously. Engage counsel promptly when a complaint is served. If a default has been entered, do not assume that the only options are surrender or all-out appeal. Evaluate the liquidated versus unliquidated status of the claimed damages and make use of the due process rights that Florida law preserves even after default. On the plaintiff side, build the damages case with the expectation that an evidentiary hearing will be required in any matter involving unliquidated categories.
Rosenthal Law Group regularly represents Florida businesses, commercial landlords, and investors in disputes involving defaults, damages, and enforcement of judgments. You can reach Rosenthal Law Group at www.rosenthalcounsel.com or by calling (954) 384-9200 to discuss how these issues may affect your leases, contracts, and ongoing business relationships.