JERRY FLOYD, APPELLANT,
v.
LARRY BAXTER AND WICKSHIRE-ON-LANE APARTMENTS, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, D/B/A WICKSHIRE-ON-LANE APARTMENTS, APPELLEES
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.
A Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's dismissal of an assault and battery action for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that a trial court cannot dismiss based on jurisdictional amount by judging whether evidence supports the damages claimed; rather, it must only determine whether the plaintiff pleaded damages in good faith.
A trial court cannot dismiss for lack of jurisdictional amount by evaluating whether the evidence supports the claimed damages. Instead, the court must determine only whether the damages were pleaded in good faith, and if so pleaded, it is irrelevant that the evidence at trial may show the recoverable amount is less than the jurisdictional threshold.
[1] A trial court must determine whether the jurisdictional amount of damages was pleaded in good faith, not whether the evidence establishes a recoverable amount exceeding t…
[2] The valuation of damages fixed by the pleadings is to be accepted as true if made in good faith and not for the illusory purpose of conferring jurisdiction.
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“Valuation fixed by the pleadings is to be accepted as true if made in good faith and not for the illusory purpose of conferring jurisdiction; it matters not that it might develop at trial that the amount recoverable is less than the jurisdictional threshold.”
Establishes the core rule that good-faith pleading controls jurisdiction, regardless of actual trial evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJerry Floyd sued Larry Baxter and Wickshire-On-Lane Apartments for assault and battery, pleading compensatory and punitive damages exceeding $5,000. A…
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 Good Faith Pleading cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from a final order dismissing appellant’s assault and battery action for lack of jurisdiction. After the parties presented evidence, but prior to submission of the cause to the jury, the trial court dismissed the case, stating “there’s no way, based on the evidence I have heard this morning, that a jury of six reasonable people could possibly award Mr. Floyd over $5,000.”
In determining whether the jurisdictional amount for the circuit court is met, the trial court is required to discern whether the jurisdictional amount of damages was pleaded in “good faith.” Valuation fixed by the pleadings is to be accepted as true if made in good faith and not for the illusory purpose of conferring jurisdiction; it matters not that it might develop at trial that the amount recoverable is less than the jurisdictional threshold. Tantillo v. Miliman, 87 So. 2d 413 (Fla.1956); Neuman v. Brigman, 475 So. 2d 1247, 1249 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Whitley v. Phil-Nick’s, Inc., 451 So. 2d 925, 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); and PTS of Gainesville, Inc. v. Olivetti Corporation of America, 334 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The Supreme Court of Florida, in a leading case on the subject, ruled as follows (Tantillo, supra, at 415):
Inasmuch as the jury had the peculiar responsibility of setting the amount of recovery, we think that the judge did not follow the essential requirements of law when so late in the trial, at the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ testimony, he stated his reasons, which were not without merit, for the conclusion that there was no “evidentiary basis for the assertion in good faith of a claim for damages in excess of $5000” and transferred the cause. We have [underlined] the words which, we think, are particularly relevant to the rule applicable in this case.
It is indispensable that the amount sought in order to invoke the jurisdiction of a court must be claimed in “good faith.” “The jurisdiction of the court is to be determined by the sum in controversy, and not by the amount of recovery.” A. Mortellaro & Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 91 Fla. 230, 107 So. 528, 530....
We are directed to nothing in the record showing that the petitioners did not initially make their demand in good faith, although it may have developed during the trial that the amount recoverable was “less than the minimum jurisdiction of the court.” A. Mortellaro & Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., supra. In the instant case, appellant pleaded compensatory and punitive damages exceeding $5,000. The trial court was therefore required to determine whether that claim was made in good faith, not whether the evidence established such a recoverable amount. Accordingly, this cause must be reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
BOOTH, C.J., and ERVIN and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McGURN v. Scott, 596 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1992)…ES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. . Whether the parties stipulated to the reservation of jurisdiction is irrelevant to our decision. An agreement by both parties to reserve jurisdiction does not make the order final. See Ralston Purina v. Tancak, 508 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). . McGurn also asserts that Scott is not entitled to prejudgment interest as a matter of law. We decline to address this issue as it was not ruled on by the trial court. . Rule 9.600(b) provides that "[w]hen the jurisdiction of…
-
Bain v. State, 730 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…ntial that a case ultimately involve damages in excess of $15,000 in order for circuit court jurisdiction to exist; the plaintiff must simply allege such damages in good faith. See Tantillo v. Miliman, 87 So. 2d 413, 415 (Fla.1956); Floyd v. Baxter, 508 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). . I am inclined to believe that some of the reform sought by the legislature could be accomplished if trial counsel in criminal cases were required to allege with some specificity in the notice of appeal the error sought to be…
-
Hines Elec. & Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. McCLURE, 616 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…oboken Drywall Co. v. Telfair, 417 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Riley-Stokes v. Pearson, 508 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Orders which determine compensability and coverage were not reviewable. ESI v. Taylor, supra; Ralston Purina v. Tancak, 508 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); J.L. Manta, Inc. v. Ramos, 526 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Kent Ins. Co. v. Hobbs, 421 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).7 Where certiorari was found to be inappropriate, many times the determination of jurisdiction was based u…
Authorities Cited
- A. Mortellaro & Co. v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 91 Fla. 230 (Fla. 1926)
- Enrico Tantillo and Sylvia Tantillo v. Miliman, 87 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1956)
- A.W. Neumann and Joe Crescenzi v. R.D. Brigman, 475 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- PTS OF Gainesville, Inc. v. Olivetti Corp. OF Am., 334 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Whitley v. Phil-Nick's, Inc., 451 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)