COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY; AND BRAVO ELECTRIC COMPANY, PETITIONERS,
v.
ALVIN WELLENREITER, A MINOR, THROUGH HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, GILBERT E. WELLENREITER; AND GILBERT WELLENREITER, INDIVIDUALLY; ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE CO.; CARTER ELECTRIC CO.; AND CONE BROTHERS CONTRACTING CO., 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.
This case addresses whether a trial court may reinstate a case after a party has filed a voluntary dismissal. The Florida appellate court held that once a party announces a voluntary dismissal before submission of a non-jury case to the court, the trial court loses jurisdiction and cannot reinstate the case, even if the dismissal was motivated by tactical concerns or miscommunication.
A trial court loses jurisdiction once a party announces a voluntary dismissal before submission of a non-jury case to the court for decision, and the trial court has no authority to reinstate the case even if the dismissal resulted from miscommunication or tactical error.
[1] A trial court loses jurisdiction over a cause of action and has no authority to reinstate it once a party announces a voluntary dismissal.
[2] A party has an absolute right to voluntary dismissal of its action before the retirement of the jury in a jury trial or before submission of a non-jury case to the court…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“once a party announces a voluntary dismissal, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the cause and has no authority to reinstate it”
Establishes the core holding that voluntary dismissal is absolute and cannot be reversed by the trial court
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarter Electric Company was defending against a cross-claim for indemnity brought by Bravo Electric Company in a non-jury trial. After failing to pres…
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 Loss Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Chief Judge.
We grant the petition for certiorari and quash the trial court’s order which allowed respondent Carter Electric Company to reopen its case, even after it had moved for a voluntary dismissal. See Randle-Eastern Ambulance Service v. Vasta, 360 So. 2d 68 (Fla.1978); Sun First National Bank v. Green Crane & Concrete Services, Inc., 371 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), review denied, 383 So. 2d 1195 (Fla.1980); Anderson v. Lovejoy, 354 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 366 So. 2d 396 (Fla.1978).
It is undisputed that respondent failed to present evidence of damages in its cross-claim for indemnity against petitioner Bravo Electric Company, and asked for a voluntary dismissal in order to avoid an adverse ruling on petitioner’s motion for directed verdict. Respondent concedes that its announcement of dismissal was effective because it occurred “before submission of [its] non-jury case to the court for deci sion.”1 Respondent contends, however, that the trial court was justified in reinstating its case because its failure to present evidence of damages was due to a miscom-munieation between the parties which led respondent to believe that the issue of damages would be decided at a later hearing. However, our supreme court made it clear in Randle-Eastern Ambulance Service v. Vasta, supra, that once a party announces a voluntary dismissal, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the cause and has no authority to reinstate it. As the supreme court indicated in that case, “It has never been the role of the trial courts of this state to relieve attorneys of their tactical mistakes.” 360 So. 2d at 69.
CERTIORARI GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.
ORFINGER and WINIFRED J. SHARP, JJ., concur. . Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(1) provides that a party may dismiss its action at any time "before retirement of the jury in a case tried before a jury or before submission of a nonjury case to the court for decision." In Fears v. Lunsford, 314 So. 2d 578 (Fla.1975), the Florida Supreme Court recognized the absolute right of voluntary dismissal granted under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420, even following entry of a directed verdict, so long as the jury has not retired. We agree with the respondent that the rule does not define a different procedural point in time for jury and non-jury trials.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Lopez, 889 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…s act. Actions at law against the state or any of its agencies or subdivisions to recover damages in tort ... may be prosecuted subject to the limitations specified in this act. (Emphasis added). . See Commerce & Industry Ins. Co. v. Wellenreiter, 475 So. 2d 1302, 1303 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)(''Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(1) provides that a party may dismiss its action at any time ‘before retirement of the jury in a case tried before a jury or before submission of a nonjury case to the court fo…
-
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. JAK Mortg., LLC, 224 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…v. Broward Cty. Sheriffs Office, 137 So. 3d 610, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (holding that a trial court cannot re-open a case after “[t]he trial court lost jurisdiction ... by virtue of-the final judgment”); Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co. v. Wellenreiter, 475 So. 2d 1302, 1303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (holding that once jurisdiction is lost, a trial court has no authority to re-open a case). We need not, and do not, express an opinion as to whether the trial court’s dismissal of JAK Mortgage’s case against U.S. Bank was…
Authorities Cited
- Randle-Eastern Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. Vasta, 360 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1978)
- Fears v. Muriel Booth Lunsford & the Ins. Co. of N. Am., 314 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1975)
- SUN First Nat'l Bank OF Delray Beach v. Green Crane & Concrete Servs., Inc., 371 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Anderson v. Lovejoy, 354 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Lovejoy v. Anderson, 366 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1978)