RONALD A. BURNS, JR., ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
STEVEN HACKER AND NANCY A. HACKER, APPELLEE
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.
Burns sought mandamus relief to compel the circuit court to hear a car repair dispute involving $5,774.50. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed that the matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the county court, not the circuit court, and denied Burns' petition for mandamus.
The court held that the complaint and counterclaim fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the county court, not the circuit court. Burns' petition for mandamus was denied.
[1] A circuit court lacks jurisdiction to hear a claim that does not meet the jurisdictional threshold for circuit court, even if it is filed as a compulsory counterclaim in…
[2] A county court has jurisdiction to hear a dispute seeking damages below the circuit court's jurisdictional threshold, even if the dispute originated as a compulsory count…
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“the complaint and the counterclaim are (and always have been) within the exclusive jurisdiction of the county court”
Establishes the controlling jurisdictional principle that determines where the case must be heard regardless of the court's stated reluctance
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBurns initiated a claim against the Hackers for allegedly substandard car repairs totaling $5,774.50. The case was originally filed in circuit court b…
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 Jurisdictional Threshold cases and more on FLexlaw
This dispute, involving $5,774.50 of allegedly substandard car repairs, makes its third (and hopefully last) appearance before this court. See Burns v. Hacker, No. 97-2579 (Fla. 5th DCA Sept. 25, 1997) (Burns I) and Burns v. Hacker, 729 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (Burns II).
In Burns II, we held that the circuit court correctly ruled that it was without jurisdiction to consider Burns’ claim because it did not meet the jurisdictional threshold of $15,000. We directed Burns to file his action in county court.1 After he did so, the circuit court transferred the Hackers’ counterclaim to county court to be consolidated with Burns’ newly filed county court case, since it sought damages under $15,000 and had been filed in the circuit court as a compulsory counterclaim to Burns’ original complaint. See Columbus Mills, Inc. v. Dionne, 328 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).
The county judge to whom the case was assigned entered an order “declining” to accept the case because the judge concluded that the county court was without jurisdiction to hear the dispute. Burns then sought to have the circuit court consider the case. Consistent with our opinion in-Bums II, the circuit court declined.
As he has in his prior appeals, Burns seeks relief premised on numerous alleged errors, most of which either have no merit or have previously been rejected by this court. The only issue presented that merits discussion is Burns’ apparent inability to get either the circuit court (that has no jurisdiction) or the county court (that has “declined” to accept the matter) to hear this ease. Burns now seeks a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to hear the matter. As we said in Burns II, the complaint and the counterclaim are (and always have been) within the exclusive jurisdiction of the county court. Accordingly, we deny the petition.2
PETITION DENIED.
THOMPSON, C.J. and SHARP, W., J., concur. . After three appeals and at least five amended complaints, the most recent of which sets forth five separate counts in this $5,774.50 dispute, this case, instituted in 1996, is still not close to resolution. World War II was concluded in less time.
. We are confident that the county court will reconsider its order declining to hear this case and not require Burns to seek mandamus relief in the circuit court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Columbus Mills, Inc. v. Dionne, 328 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- State v. Thomas, 729 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)