CORAL SPRINGS TOWER CLUB II CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
LYNNE R. DIZEFALO AND HONORABLE HARRY G. HINCKLEY, JR., 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.
A condominium association petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel the circuit court to reverse its order transferring a foreclosure action to county court based on the amount in controversy being less than $15,000. The court granted the mandamus petition, holding that circuit courts have subject matter jurisdiction over foreclosure actions regardless of the amount in controversy, and the trial judge's refusal to exercise jurisdiction was an abuse of discretion.
A circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction over foreclosure actions regardless of the amount in controversy. The circuit court erroneously transferred the foreclosure action to county court, and this refusal to exercise jurisdiction within its proper authority constitutes grounds for mandamus relief.
[1] Circuit courts have subject matter jurisdiction over foreclosure actions even when the amount in controversy is less than $15,000.
[2] Circuit and county courts have concurrent jurisdiction over foreclosure actions, with county court jurisdiction limited by its monetary limits.
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“Thus, a circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction over a foreclosure action even though the amount in controversy is under $15,000.”
Establishes the core holding that circuit courts retain jurisdiction over foreclosures regardless of monetary amount
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA foreclosure action was filed in Broward County Circuit Court by Coral Springs Tower Club II Condominium Association. The circuit court, sua sponte 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 Discretionary Acts cases and more on FLexlaw
PARIENTE, Judge.
This mandamus petition seeks to compel the Broward County Circuit Court to reverse an order transferring a foreclosure action to county court because the matter in controversy was less than $15,000. We grant the writ of mandamus because the circuit court erroneously refused to exercise jurisdiction over a matter clearly within its jurisdiction.
In Alexdex Corp. v. Nachon Enterprises, Inc., 641 So. 2d 858 (Fla.1994), after construing the legislative grants of authority to the circuit and county courts, our supreme court held that both the circuit and county court have concurrent jurisdiction over foreclosure actions. The only limitation placed on the concurrent exercise of jurisdiction would be that county court foreclosure actions must fall within the county court’s monetary jurisdiction. Alexdex. Thus, a circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction over a foreclosure action even though the amount in controversy is under $15,000. See American Roll—Up Door Co. v. Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp., 662 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint to foreclose a mechanic’s lien on a claim for $4,592).
While acknowledging Alexdex, the circuit court here transferred the action to county court solely because the amount in controversy was less than $15,000:
[Sjince this foreclosure action involves an amount in controversy less than $15,000.00, this Honorable Court believes that this action should not have been filed in Circuit Court but in fact should be heard by the County Court.
The circuit made this decision sua sponte without any pending motion filed by either party at a hearing on petitioner’s motion for summary judgment. In fact, prior to the scheduled hearing the parties had agreed to the entry of a final judgment, with the foreclosure sale not to be held sooner than sixty days from the entry of the judgment. The case was effectively over, requiring only that the circuit court sign the necessary orders.
The circuit court did not rely on any discretionary factors in deciding to transfer the cause to county court; it simply refused to exercise jurisdiction over a matter properly within its jurisdiction. We are unaware of any statute, rule of procedure or local administrative order which authorizes transfer because a trial judge just does not want to hear the case.
Mandamus is not available to mandate the doing or undoing of a discretionary act or a merely erroneous decision. See Migliore v. City of Lauderhill, 415 So. 2d 62, 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), approved, 431 So. 2d 986 (Fla.1983); Hasam Realty Corp. v. City of Hallandale, 393 So. 2d 561, 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). However, as stated in Flagship National Bank v. Testa, 429 So. 2d 69, 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), mandamus is available “[i]f a lower court, without sufficient reason, neglects or refuses to act on a matter within its jurisdiction ... unless the aggrieved party has an adequate remedy by appeal.”
Here the circuit court refused to exercise jurisdiction over a cause of action within its jurisdiction, in disregard for the clear legal rights of a litigant to bring a mortgage foreclosure action in circuit court as established by our supreme court’s decision in Alexdex. See Sea Breeze, Video, Inc. v. Federico, 648 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Woodland v. Lindsey, 586 So. 2d 1255, 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Martin v. Marko, 564 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). In anticipation that the circuit court will vacate its order of transfer and accept jurisdiction over this ease, we grant the petition for writ of mandamus but withhold issuing the writ.
STONE and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Recanzone v. The MAY Co., 712 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…unt, the trial court erred in refusing to exercise jurisdiction over a matter which clearly was within its jurisdiction. See Alexdex Corp. v. Nachon Enters., Inc., 641 So. 2d 858 (Fla.1994); Coral Springs Tower Club II Condominium Ass’n v. Dizefalo, 667 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (in mandamus proceeding, instructing circuit court to vacate order transferring to county court a foreclosure action where amount in controversy was less than $15,000). GUNTHER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
-
R.H. Donnelley Publ'g & Advertising, Inc. v. LAW Off. OF Patricia K. Herman, P.A., 44 So. 3d 208 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…mus is available ‘[i]f a lower court, without sufficient reason, neglects or refuses to act on a matter within its jurisdiction ... unless the aggrieved party has an adequate remedy by appeal.’ ” Coral Springs Tower Club II Condo. Ass’n v. Dizefalo, 667 So. 2d 966, 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (quoting Flagship Nat’l Bank of Miami v. Testa, 429 So. 2d 69, 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)). Because Don-nelley had an adequate remedy available by filing a timely direct appeal, which it failed to do, we conclude that the instant…
-
Point Conversions, LLC. v. Pfeffer & Marin Holdings, LLC. (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…, on its face, seeks to “control [the] discretion [of the lower court] while acting within its jurisdiction.” Ex parte Brown, 116 U.S. 401, 402, 6 S. Ct. 387, 387, 29 L. Ed. 676 (1886); see Coral Springs Tower Club II Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Dizefalo, 667 So. 2d 966, 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (“Mandamus is not available to mandate the doing or undoing of a discretionary act or a merely erroneous decision.”) (citations omitted). Accordingly, I cannot conclude the lower tribunal unconstitutionally deprived petitio…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Alexdex Corp. v. Nachon Enters., Inc., 641 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1994)
- Migliore v. The City OF Lauderhill, 415 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Flagship Nat'l Bank OF Miami v. The Honorable Thomas A. Testa, 429 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Migliore v. City OF Lauderhill, 431 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1983)
- Martin v. Honorable Paul Marko, III, 564 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Woodland v. Honorable Hubert R. Lindsey, 586 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Dep't OF Revenue of the State of Fla. v. Reid, 393 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Hasam Realty Corp. v. City OF Hallandale, 393 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- SEA Breeze v. The Honorable Philip A. Federico, 648 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Martin v. State, 662 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)