JENNINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND MILTON S. JENNINGS, PETITIONER,
v.
C. H. V. INVESTMENT CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by exercising jurisdiction over defendants after they had been dismissed from the cause via a final, unappealed judgment.
Defendants were sued and served, then dismissed by final judgment. A successor judge later granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint ag…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Petition For Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This petition for certiorari1 presents a claimed departure from the essential requirements of law in that the trial court continues to exercise jurisdiction over the defendants, Jennings Construction Corporation and Milton S. Jennings, after they have been dismissed from the cause. We agree that the record does present such a departure, and the writ is granted.
The essential chronology is as follows: (1) The defendants, Jennings Construction Corporation and Milton S. Jennings, were sued and properly served with process. (2) The trial judge entered a final judgment dismissing the cause without leave to amend as to these defendants. (3) A successor trial judge, acting over five months after the final judgment which had become “rendered” 2 and was unappealed, granted leave to the plaintiff to file an amended complaint against the same defendants in the same cause.
We do not determine the possible issue of res judicata but hold that upon the state of the record as above recited the trial court had no jurisdiction over these defendants at the time of the entry of the order granting leave to amend the complaint as to these defendants. See McMullen v. McMullen, 145 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). The order of February 25,1980, is quashed insofar as it pertains to the defendants, Jennings Construction Corporation and Milton S. Jennings.
It is so ordered.
. Although originally filed as an interlocutory appeal, this court has, pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(c), determined that the interlocutory appeal should be considered as a petition for certiorari.
. Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carnival Corp. v. Sargeant, 690 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…g, appeal or file a new lawsuit. They did none of these. As a re- [*662] suit, the trial court did not have jurisdiction at the time it entei’ed the order granting leave to amend the complaint. Jennings Construction Corp. v. C.H.V. Investment Corp., 386 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The Petition for Writ of Prohibition is granted. The trial court is directed to quash its order of January 21, 1997 and to reinstate the order of dismissal. It is so ordered.…
Authorities Cited
- McMULLEN v. McMULLEN, 145 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)