CLETUS PHILLIPS AND ELEANOR PHILLIPS, HIS WIFE, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
SAMUEL C. CUTLER AND DORIS M. CUTLER, HIS WIFE, AND KARL E. BIGELOW D/B/A VENETIAN MOBILE HOME PARK, RESPONDENTS
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 circuit court's transfer of a case seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to a county court was improper because the county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Petitioners, residents of a mobile home park, sued the owner seeking a declaratory judgment and injunction against their removal, alleging the owner v…
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 Adequate Remedy On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
Petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to review an order of the circuit court which transferred their action to the county court. They assert that the transfer was contrary to the essential requirements of law and resulted in irreparable harm for which the remedy of appeal would be inadequate. We agree and grant their petition.
Petitioners, who are residents of a mobile home park owned by respondents, alleged that respondents were seeking to remove them from the park because they refused to sign a lease which contained provisions unacceptable to them. Contending that respondents were violating Chapter 83, Florida Statutes (1979), they sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction against their removal from the park.
Declaratory and injunctive relief are classic equitable remedies, and Section 26.-012(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1979), gives the circuit courts exclusive jurisdiction over all cases in equity. Furthermore, Section 86.-011, Florida Statutes (1979), specifically vests jurisdiction over declaratory actions in the circuit court. While Section 83.60, Florida Statutes (1979), does permit the raising of equitable defenses to certain landlord possessory actions, there is no such action yet pending. Also, the right to raise equitable defenses is not the equivalent of the right to seek declaratory and injunctive relief.
It is clear then that the transfer of the cause by the circuit court was a transfer to a court without subject matter jurisdiction and that this violated the essential requirements of law. Moreover, the error resulted in irreparable harm to petitioners because there is not an adequate remedy by appeal from this type of order. See Norris v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 324 So. 2d 108 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Easley v. Garden Sanctuary, Inc., 120 So. 2d 59 (Fla.2d DCA 1960). Accordingly, we quash the transfer order and remand the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.
BOARDMAN, A. C. J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aurora Enters., Inc. v. State, 395 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
-
Diamond v. Elvis Towing, Inc., 268 So. 3d 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…determines the dollar amount jurisdiction."). Conclusion Both of the trial court's rulings were contrary to the essential requirements of law and result "in irreparable harm for which the remedy of appeal would be inadequate." Phillips v. Cutler, 388 So. 2d 48, 49 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). The circuit court erred in finding that the amount in controversy was less than $15,000 where Ms. Diamond's complaint alleged that damages are in excess of $15,000 and the evidence did not show that the amount in controve…
Authorities Cited
- Easley v. THE Garden Sanctuary, Inc., 120 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Norris v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 324 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)