TAX CERTIFICATE REDEMPTION'S, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
GERALD C. MEITZ, JR. AND GERALD C. MEITZ, SR., 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.
Tax Certificate Redemptions, Inc. sought to recover $1,985.13 for an unpaid 1990 tax certificate through an action in small claims court that included counts for unjust enrichment, specific performance, and quasi contract. The court held that while unjust enrichment and quasi contract claims are permissible in small claims court, the specific performance count—an equitable remedy—rendered the entire action improper for small claims jurisdiction.
An action seeking specific performance cannot be filed in small claims court because specific performance is an equitable remedy. However, unjust enrichment and quasi contract claims are actions at law that may be maintained in small claims court when the amount is within the court's jurisdiction, as these were historically forms of assumpsit.
[1] Small claims courts may only entertain actions at law, not actions in equity.
[2] A specific performance action, being equitable in nature, cannot be filed in small claims 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“in small claims court a party may maintain only actions at law”
Establishes the core jurisdictional rule that small claims court is limited to legal actions, not equitable ones.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Tax Certificate Redemptions, Inc. filed an action in small claims court against respondents Gerald C. Meitz, Jr. and Gerald C. Meitz, Sr., …
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 Quasi Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner filed an action for unjust enrichment, specific performance and quasi contract in small claims court, claiming that it was entitled to $1,985.13 plus interest for a 1990 tax certificate that respondents have refused to pay for almost seven years.
Upon the respondents’ motion, the court dismissed the suit on the ground that it was not properly filed in small claims court, since Florida Small Claims Rule 7.010(b) requires all actions to be at law and not in equity. This ruling prompted a petition for mandamus to the circuit court, requesting a writ to order the small claims court to take jurisdiction of its complaint. The circuit court denied the petition, and petitioner filed this petition for certiorari.
We find that there is no departure from the essential requirements of law because in small claims court a party may maintain only actions at law. See Fla. Sm.Cl.R. 7.010(b). While Alexdex Corp. v. Nachon Enterprises, Inc., 641 So. 2d 858 (Fla.1994), holds that the county court may exercise equity jurisdiction over matters within its monetary jurisdiction, it does not mandate that such eases be filed in the small claims division. Therefore, a specific performance action may not be filed in small claims court. What petitioner seeks, essentially, is for this court to direct a change in the rules of court, something strictly within the jurisdiction of the supreme court.
The petitioner’s specific performance count prevented the small claims court from taking jurisdiction pursuant to the rule as the court is clearly in equity. Absent that count, the small claims court could have exercised its jurisdiction over the unjust enrichment and quasi contract counts.1 In Commerce Partnership 8098 Limited Partnership v. Equity Contracting Co., Inc., 695 So. 2d 383, 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), we noted that:
all implied contract actions were part of the action of assumpsit, which was an action at law under the common law. E.g., Boyce Constr. Corp. v. District Bd. of Trustees, 414 So. 2d 634, 637, n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Carter v. Suggs, 190 So. 2d 784, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). Although some Florida courts have described quasi contracts as being “equitable in nature,” e.g., Gene B. Glick, Co., Inc., 651 So. 2d at 190, the term has been used in the sense of “fairness,” to describe that quality which makes an enrichment unjust, and not as a reference to the equity side of the court.
Thus, such counts could be brought in small claims court when the amount involved is within the jurisdiction of the court.
DELL, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur. . As we noted in Commerce, both unjust enrichment and quasi contract are actually terms used interchangeably to describe a cause of action encompassed by a contract implied in law.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LaSALLA v. Pools BY George OF Pinellas Cnty., Inc., 125 So. 3d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…t applies the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. This is true even if a county court has elected to create a “small claims division” to handle cases under the Florida Small Claims Rules. To the extent that Tax Certificate Redemption’s, Inc. v. Meitz, 705 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), discusses the “jurisdiction” of a small claims court as distinct from the jurisdiction of county court, we believe that discussion is incorrect. This case began in 2006 as a two-count complaint filed in the small claims divisio…
Authorities Cited
- Commerce P'ship 8098 Ltd. P'ship & Forest-English, Inc. v. Equity Contracting Co., Inc., 695 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Alexdex Corp. v. Nachon Enters., Inc., 641 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1994)
- Carter v. Suggs, 190 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Boyce Constr. Corp. & United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. The Dist. Bd. OF Trs. OF Valencia Cmty. Coll. f/u/b/o Diversified Design Enters., Inc., 414 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)