KIRK RECANZONE, PETITIONER,
v.
THE MAY COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION AND LORD & TAYLOR, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
Circuit court erred in transferring consumer debt collection and unfair trade practice action to county court where equitable relief was sought, as circuit courts have concurrent jurisdiction over such actions regardless of monetary amount.
Circuit courts have concurrent jurisdiction with county courts over consumer debt collection and unfair trade practice actions when equitable relief is sought, and may not transfer such cases based solely on the monetary amount in controversy.
[1] Circuit courts retain concurrent jurisdiction over consumer debt collection and unfair trade practice actions seeking equitable relief notwithstanding that the monetary a…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner brought an action for damages and injunctive relief under Florida's consumer debt collection and deceptive trade practice statutes against …
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 Consumer Protection cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner seeks to compel the Palm Beach County circuit court to exercise jurisdiction over an action for damages and for injunctive relief, brought under sections 559.77 et seq., Florida Statutes (relating to consumer debt collection practices), and sections 501.201 et seq., Florida Statutes (relating to deceptive and unfair trade practices). The circuit court transferred the case to the county court, finding that it did not have jurisdiction because it was persuaded by the arguments of the defendant that the amount in controversy did not exceed the county court’s $15,000 jurisdictional amount. We grant the petition.
Because the circuit and county courts have concurrent jurisdiction over such actions when equitable relief is sought, qualified only in that, if brought in county court, such actions must fall within the $15,000 monetary jurisdictional amount, 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gibson v. State, 772 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…l court on remand to give the State the option of requiring the withdrawal of Mr. Gibson’s plea and trying him on the original charge of burglary of a dwelling or allowing the judgment to stand and simply seeking re-sentencing. See Morales v. State, 712 So. 2d 474, 475 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Forshee v. State, 579 So. 2d 388, 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). We reject Mr. Gibson’s argument that the trial court cannot sentence him as a prison releasee reoffender for attempted burglary of an unoccupied dwelling. He cites S…
-
Kelly v. State, 816 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…tences on each count. However, a sentence is illegal if the combined terms of prison and probation exceed the statutory maximum (provided the sentencing scoresheet does not authorize a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum). Morales v. State, 712 So. 2d 474, 474 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Kelly’s sentencing scoresheet total did not exceed the statutory maximum. Accordingly, Kelly’s sentences are illegal because each sentence exceeds the five-year statutory maximum for a felony of the third degree. See § 775.0…
-
Diaz v. State, 884 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…t that Mr. Diaz signed a contract with the State agreeing that he could be sentenced to county jail for noncompliance with PTI is of no import because “[a] criminal defendant may not agree to the imposition of an illegal sentence.” Morales v. State, 712 So. 2d 474, 474 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted, and the directive of the trial court sentencing Mr. Diaz to sixty days in the county jail is quashed. ON THE MOTION FOR REHEARING The State filed a motion for rehearing o…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Coral Springs Tower Club II Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Dizefalo, 667 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)