Artificial Intelligence
Please fill the required field.

NEED A PROPERLY ORGANIZED COHESIVE LEGAL brief ON SUPPORTING LEGAL BASED COURT REGISTRY MONIES DEFENSE USING THE FOLLOWING TEXT DOCUMENT AND OTHER SUPPORTING LEGAL SUPPORT INFORMATION REGARDING THE UNLAWFULNESS OF A TRIAL JUDGE ALLOWING PREVIOUSLY RULED O

**IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA** **Case No. 25-010435** **SOUTHWEST HAMMOCKS, LLLP,** Plaintiff, **vs.** **JOYCE NDIMBIE,** Defendant. --- ### DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REVERSE ORDER GRANTING RENT MONIES OF MAY 7, 2025, AND STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION **I. INTRODUCTION** This motion is presented by Joyce Ndimbie ("Defendant"), an indigent, disabled, aged, and unrepresented Black female, challenging the Order granting rent monies issued by this Court on May 7, 2025. This Order was predicated on actions taken by the Plaintiff without due notice to the Defendant, violating Florida's statutory requirements for notice and disregarding the principles of procedural and substantive justice. **II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND** 1. Plaintiff filed a motion for rent payment without providing the requisite notice to Defendant, failing to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(d) and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080 governing proper service. 2. The Defendant was never notified of the May 7, 2025 hearing, which violated her right to due process, thus causing her to be deprived of the opportunity to defend her interests in court. 3. The Defendant’s mailing address, a registered P.O. Box (P.O. Box 100813, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33310), was known to the Plaintiff, and any notice was required to be sent to this address. 4. The Plaintiff misrepresented the Defendant's housing situation in an attempt to induce a default judgment, despite documentation showing that a third-party provider covered a substantial portion of the Defendant's rent under the Housing Choice Voucher Program ("HCVP"). **III. LEGAL ARGUMENT** **A. Violation of the Right to Proper Notice** 1. Under Florida law, Defendant has a right to reasonable notice of hearings (Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090(d)). This requirement is founded upon the principles of due process and fundamental fairness. Failure to provide notice constitutes a breach of the Defendant’s rights to participate meaningfully in judicial proceedings. 2. In **Davis v. Starling**, 799 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), the court emphasized that strict compliance with notice provisions is vital; failure to provide notice permitted the aggrieved party to challenge the proceedings. **B. Opposition to Default Judgments Based on Lack of Fair Notice** 1. The entry of a default judgment against Defendant without proper notification is inherently unfair and invalid. A default judgment rests on the premise that the defendant had a fair opportunity to present their defense, which was not afforded here. 2. The legal standards for default judgments require not just notice but also an opportunity to cure any alleged noncompliance. The failure to afford the Defendant this opportunity violates Florida Statutes and the procedural requirements set forth in **Florida Statutes § 83.60(2)**, indicating that tenants may defend against possession actions based on various factors, including the landlord’s noncompliance with rules governing lease agreements. 3. The Plaintiff’s attempts to enter a default judgment based on misleading information regarding Defendant's subsidy payments inherently violate the fundamental principles of due process and lead to an unjust outcome detrimental to the Defendant. **C. The Defense of Subsidized Housing and Proper Rent Payments** 1. The Plaintiff failed to recognize that the Defendant is part of the HCVP, responsible only for a portion of the rent (Fla. Stat. § 83.60(2)). The Defendant has made consistent rent payments into the Court registry as required by statutory provisions, disproving claims of default on rent obligations. 2. Evidence, including payment records submitted (Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 4), demonstrates that Plaintiff has accepted payments for July, August, and September and continued to engage with the HCVP provider to cover Defendant’s rent, thereby waiving any alleged rights to evict on the basis of non-payment. **IV. REQUEST FOR RELIEF** Given the preceding arguments and legal principles, the Defendant respectfully requests this Court to: 1. Reverse the Order granted on May 7, 2025, allowing rent payments and entering a default against the Defendant. 2. Strike any motions filed by the Plaintiff pertaining to claims for rent alleged unpaid without proper evidence and due process. 3. Order the Plaintiff to adhere strictly to all notice and procedural requirements moving forward, ensuring that the Defendant's rights are adequately protected throughout these proceedings. 4. Grant any further relief the Court deems just and proper. **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE** I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion was served to: Kirk de Leon 44 W. Flagler St., #1200C Miami, FL 33130 by certified mail this ___ day of ________, 2025. Joyce Ndimbie P.O. Box 100813 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33310 **Respectfully submitted,** _____________________________ Joyce Ndimbie Defendant, Pro Se Date: ___, 2025 Update (2025-06-17): ### IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA **Case No: 25-010435** **Southwest Hammocks, LLLP, Plaintiff,** **v.** **Joyce Ndimbie, Defendant.** ### DEFENSE MOTION TO REVERSE ORDER GRANTING RENT MONIES AND TO STRIKE THE PLAINTIFF #### INTRODUCTION Defendant, Joyce Ndimbie, respectfully moves this Court to reverse the order dated May 7, 2025, which grants Plaintiff’s motion concerning court registry rent payments. Plaintiff's actions have deprived defendant, a disabled, indigent and unrepresented Black female, of her fundamental rights, particularly her right to due process, access to courts, and have led to wrongful eviction proceedings against her. #### ARGUMENTS 1. **Lack of Proper Notice** Plaintiff failed to provide proper notice of the May 7, 2025 hearing, a clear violation of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 1.090(d) and 1.080. Formal notice mandates that each party receive adequate notification to prepare and present a defense. In this instance, the Plaintiff was fully aware of the Defendant's only reliable mailing address—P.O. Box 100813, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33310. Under Davis v. Starling, 799 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), the court affirmed that strict compliance with notice provisions is critical to ensure that parties are afforded due process. Failing to notify the Defendant of the hearing constituted a blatant violation of her rights and warrants reversal of the order. 2. **Denial of Procedural Due Process** The Defendant was not afforded an opportunity to rehear, reschedule, or vacate the order due to her unrepresented and vulnerable status. The Court not only allowed a default judgment without due process but further ignored the statutory framework that mandates reasonable opportunity for such individuals. This contravenes Florida constitutional principles and the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, which ensures fair treatment and access to legal recourse. 3. **Continuing Payments from Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP)** Defendant has continuously made her rental payments through a Housing Choice Voucher Program. Florida Statutes § 83.60(2) argues that if a tenant was receiving public assistance, they are only required to pay a portion of the rent determined by the program. Evidence shows that Plaintiff accepted payments after filing the eviction complaint, further highlighting the illegality of their claim for rent owed. Additionally, Defendant provided checks exceeding the rental amount demanded by the Plaintiff, which were either returned or ignored. This refusal reflects an intentional effort to create arrears for eviction purposes and violates the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in landlord-tenant relationships. 4. **Misrepresentation & Fraud on the Court** The Plaintiff's actions include repeated misrepresentation of facts and misleading the court regarding Defendant's HCVP status to gain wrongful advantage. By fabricating allegations of nonpayment where payments had indeed been made, the Plaintiff has committed fraud upon the court. Such acts not only disrupt lawful proceedings but also promote an unjust outcome based on false premises. 5. **Retaliation & Discrimination** The timing of the eviction proceedings correlates with Defendant’s complaints against the plaintiff regarding harassment and discrimination as outlined in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and the Fair Housing Act. Engaging in adversarial actions post-complaint constitutes a retaliatory effort to silence the Defendant and prevent her from accessing judicial remedies, clearly violating federal and state civil rights legislation. 6. **Res Judicata** The principles of res judicata prevent the relitigation of claims that have already been settled between the same parties involving the same cause of action. The issues raised in Plaintiff's eviction case are res judicata owing to previous proceedings. As confirmed in Vignoli v. Clifton Apartments, Inc., 2014 WL 6850778 (S.D. Fla.), judgments rendered in earlier suits provide conclusive outcomes barring subsequent litigation on the same matter. #### CONCLUSION Given the profound violations of due process, statutory provisions, and the intentional misrepresentation of facts by the Plaintiff, Defendant requests that this Court reverse the order granting rent payments made on May 7, 2025. In addition, Defendant seeks to strike Plaintiff's claims, as they have been founded upon fraudulent actions, lack of proper procedure, and a blatant disregard for the Defendant's rights as a tenant under Florida law and federal regulations. #### PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Defendant Joyce Ndimbie respectfully requests this Honorable Court to: 1. Reverse the order dated May 7, 2025; 2. Strike all motions and pleadings filed by Plaintiff in contravention of Defendant's rights; and 3. Grant any further relief this Court deems just and proper. **Dated:** [Date] **Respectfully submitted,** **Joyce Ndimbie** **[Defendant’s Address, if needed for records]** **[Email or contact phone number if available]** **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE** I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served upon all parties involved on [date of service]. (Note: Always specify accurate information based on actual filings and supplement with relevant signatures/appearance as per local rules.) Update (2025-06-17): **IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA** **CASE NO. 25-010435** **Joyce Ndimbie,** Appellant, Pro Se **v.** **Southwest Hammocks, LLLP,** Appellee. **LEGAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL AND MOTION TO VACATE FINAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT** ### I. INTRODUCTION This case arises from a procedurally and constitutionally flawed second eviction action filed by the Appellee (Landlord) during the pendency of an appeal in a related eviction matter involving the same parties and property. Appellant, a Black, indigent, unrepresented, disabled, and elderly female, was denied proper notice, access to the courts, and the opportunity to defend herself. This resulted in a default judgment and possession order that unlawfully altered previous court rulings regarding court registry payments. ### II. JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND DIVISION **A. Jurisdiction:** Florida Statute § 736.0103(14) indicates that jurisdiction pertains to a court's authority to hear a case. While the court may generally have jurisdiction over eviction actions, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction in this instance due to the ongoing appeal concerning a related action and the principle of **res judicata**. **B. Venue and Division Concerns:** The current case was improperly assigned to a different division (Division 56) while the first case remained under review in Division 55. This violates judicial economy principles and creates a risk of conflicting rulings. **Legal Support:** - **Ayala Law P.A., Jurisdiction & Venue in Florida Litigation** - **Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.215(b)(3):** “[The chief judge] shall consider…the proper and efficient administration of all courts.” ### III. SUMMARY OF FACTS 1. The Appellee filed a second eviction action during the pendency of an appeal from the first case. 2. The trial court struck all of Appellant’s pleadings without notice and entered a default judgment. 3. Appellant was never served proper notice of hearings regarding validity at the default judgment. 4. The trial court altered previous rulings by ordering payment into the court registry without a proper hearing on the same issues previously decided. 5. The Appellee violated federal law by failing to provide mandatory VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) notices under **24 CFR § 5.2005**. ### IV. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES **A. Res Judicata Bars the Second Eviction** Res judicata prevents the relitigation of claims between the same parties and based on the same facts. The second eviction case is precluded by the pending appeal from the prior action. **Authorities**: - **Topps v. State**, 865 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 2004) - **Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co.**, 28 Cal. 4th 888 (2002) - **Fla. Stat. § 83.232(2):** Rent disputes are limited to narrow issues when raised in court. - **Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540:** Relief from judgment mechanisms for mistake, fraud, or excusable neglect. **B. Improper Entry of Default: Procedural Violations** Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.500(b) necessitates that notice is given to any party in default. The Appellant was not served with the motion for default, which violates her constitutional right to due process. **Rule Violations**: - **Rule 1.080:** Requires service of all pleadings. - **Rule 1.090(d):** Requires five days’ minimum notice before a hearing. - **Rule 1.440(a):** Mandates that a trial may not be set until the case is “at issue.” - **Rule 3.060:** Motions must be served in a reasonable time. **Authorities**: - **Bennett v. Continental Chemicals, Inc.**, 492 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) - **Perez v. Wells Fargo N.A.**, 138 So. 3d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) - **Military Park Fire Control Dist. v. DeMarois**, 407 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) **C. Abuse of Discretion in Ignoring Indigency and Disabilities** The Appellant is a self-represented, indigent litigant with disabilities and systematically denied the ability to file motions or receive hearings. This constitutes an abuse of discretion and judicial bias. **Florida Constitutional Support**: - **Art. I, § 21:** Right of access to courts. - **Art. I, § 22:** Right to jury trial. - **Art. I, § 23:** Right to privacy. **Federal Constitutional Support**: - U.S. Const., 14th Amendment: Guarantees due process and equal protection. - **Goldberg v. Kelly**, 397 U.S. 254 (1970): Denial of benefits without a hearing constitutes a due process violation. **D. Violation of HUD/VAWA Protections** As a tenant under a HUD-subsidized program, the Appellant was entitled to VAWA-required notices pertaining to eviction and lease termination (24 CFR §§ 5.2005(a)(4), (c)(2)). Failure to provide these notices invalidates the eviction. **Consequences**: - Properties operated under HUD/LIHTC must comply with VAWA provisions or risk losing federal funding. ### V. COURT REGISTRY ISSUE: PRIOR RULINGS BAR NEW CLAIMS Under **Fla. Stat. § 83.232**, payment into the registry is only mandated when properly noticed and ordered by the court. The following are highlighted: 1. Division 55 previously adjudicated issues related to the Appellant's rent payments. 2. Division 56 unlawfully revived these claims without a proper hearing. **Authority**: - **Steinhardt v. Steinhardt**, 445 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984): One judge may not overrule another of equal rank. ### VI. CONCLUSION The second eviction action was jurisdictionally improper, procedurally deficient, and constitutionally offensive. The trial court: 1. Violated multiple procedural rules. 2. Ignored constitutional protections for indigent and disabled, unrepresented litigants. 3. Re-litigated claims barred by res judicata. 4. Did not ensure the Appellant’s due process and equal protection rights were upheld. ### VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Appellant respectfully requests this Honorable Court: 1. Vacate the default judgment entered on May 13, 2025. 2. Remand the case with instructions to consolidate it with the prior pending appeal. 3. Issue sanctions or refer for judicial review if appropriate under the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC). 4. Grant any other relief deemed just and equitable. **Respectfully submitted,** [Your Full Legal Name] Pro Se Litigant [Mailing Address] [Phone] (optional) [Email – if any] Update (2025-06-17): **IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA** **IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.440 AND 1.500** **CASE NO. SC22-575** **DEFENDANT'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVERSE ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT** **INTRODUCTION** This brief is submitted on behalf of the Defendant/Appellant, Joyce Ndimbie, in support of the motion to reverse the lower trial court's order granting a default judgment against her. The Defendant contends that the trial judge unlawfully altered a previously ruled court registry money payment order, entering a default judgment without allowing the indigent, disabled, aged, unrepresented Black female defendant an opportunity to rehear, reschedule, or vacate the order. The matter at hand raises serious questions regarding jurisdiction, violation of statutory procedures, and the fundamental rights of access to courts, particularly under the circumstances that the court failed to provide proper notice as required by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. This brief will detail the legal basis for the motion to reverse and will incorporate relevant statutory and constitutional provisions to demonstrate the injustices endured by the Defendant. **JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND DIVISION RELEVANCE** 1. **Jurisdiction**: Under Florida Statutes, jurisdiction encompasses the court's authority over the subject matter and the parties involved. The jurisdictional framework in this case must be carefully considered given the procedural history. 2. **Venue**: Venue is determined by where the parties reside and the location of the property involved in the eviction. The choice of the venue can significantly impact the proceedings in terms of fairness and accessibility. 3. **Division Relevance**: The subsequent assignment of evictions to different divisions raises concerns regarding potential bias and the proper adherence to procedural laws, including the effect of res judicata and collateral estoppel. **FACTUAL SUMMARY** The Defendant has faced multiple wrongful eviction filings by the Plaintiff, Southwest Hammocks, LLLP. The first eviction resulted in a judgment that addressed the amount of rent owed. The second eviction claim, however, was filed while the appeal of the first was pending, raising substantial questions about whether the Plaintiff could lawfully file for the same cause of action. **ISSUES RAISED** 1. **Violation of Judicial Administration and Abuse of Discretion**: The trial court’s entry of default judgment without proper notice, in violation of FL. R. Civ. P. 1.090(d), constitutes an egregious abuse of discretion. 2. **Res Judicata**: The failure to recognize that the Defendant was barred from relitigating the same cause of action under the doctrine of res judicata leads to procedural and substantive injustices, preventing the Defendant from asserting her defenses. 3. **Constitutional Violations**: The actions of the trial court and the Plaintiff/Appellants can be viewed as violations of the First Amendment of the Florida Constitution, specifically accessing courts, as well as protections against discrimination under the Fair Housing Act and VAWA (Violence Against Women Act). **ARGUMENT** 1. **Failure to Provide Notice**: The failure of the Plaintiff to provide adequate notice of the hearing held on May 7, 2025, violates FL. R. Civ. P. 1.090(d), which guarantees that all parties must receive reasonable notice regarding legal hearings affecting their rights. The Appellant’s lack of representation must be taken into account given her status as an indigent disabled tenant. As noted in *Davis v. Starling*, the court’s requirement for proper notice is fundamental to ensuring due process. 2. **Procedural Missteps in Summary Eviction Proceedings**: Under Florida law, summary eviction procedures are explicitly designed to quickly determine possession and do not permit relitigation of issues relating to unpaid rent or damages. The entry of a judgment in the prior eviction should preclude any further claims by the Plaintiff unless extraordinary circumstances exist. The matter hinges upon judgments rendered in the *Camena Invs. & Prop. Mgmt. Corp. v. Cross*. 3. **Constitutional Violations**: The actions of the Plaintiff were retaliatory and discriminatory given the Defendant's status as a participant in the HCVP program under VAWA. As detailed in the case materials, the Plaintiff failed to adhere to required servicing of notices and conducted themselves in a manner that perpetrated a hostile environment. The laws governing rental agreements, particularly those subsidized by government programs, impose additional obligations that the Plaintiff failed to fulfill, indicating a potential abuse of power. 4. **Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel**: According to precedent set forth in *Muhammad v. Sec'y Fla. Dept. of Corr.*, the previous determination of rent payments should preclude further litigation on the same matter between the same parties. The failure to recognize the binding nature of the first eviction ruling constitutes a violation of the Defendant's due process rights. **CONCLUSION** In light of the substantive and procedural violations, including the abuse of discretion shown in the trial court’s handling of the Defendant’s case as well as the improper application of court rules regarding notice and eviction procedures, the Defendant respectfully requests that the court reverse the order granting default judgment and allow for a proper adjudication that is fair and in compliance with Florida law and the U.S. Constitution. The interests of justice demand that the rights of the Defendant, particularly as it pertains to access to courts and the basic rights to representation and justice for all individuals, regardless of status, are upheld. Respectfully submitted, **Joyce Ndimbie** **PO Box 100813, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33310** **[Defendant Pro Se]** **Certificate of Service** This document will be furnished to all parties as directed via certified mail.