ILANA BEN-DAVID, APPELLANT,
v.
THE EDUCATION RESOURCES INSTITUTE, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
The Education Resources Institute sued Ben-David in circuit court for unpaid student loans totaling $40,493.77 across three separate promissory notes. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, holding that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the three separate, unrelated notes could not be aggregated to meet the $15,000 jurisdictional threshold, and the case should have been filed in county court.
The circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because three separate and unrelated promissory notes executed at different times for different purposes cannot be aggregated to meet the $15,000 jurisdictional threshold required for circuit court. The judgment is void, and the case must be transferred to county court.
[1] A trial court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction renders its judgments void.
[2] Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred upon a court by the constitution or by statute.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A trial court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction makes its judgments void”
Establishes the foundational principle that voids the circuit court's judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBen-David executed three promissory notes to TERI on different dates: July 12, 1994 ($14,539.83), August 11, 1995 ($9,040.18), and February 21, 1996 (…
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
LAGOA, Judge.
The defendant, llana Ben-David (“Ben-David”), appeals from a final judgment entered against her in the amount of $40,493.77. Because the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we reverse the final judgment.
The Education Resources Institute, Inc. (“TERI”) filed suit in Miami-Dade County circuit court against Ben-David seeking recovery for unpaid student loans. Specifically, the complaint alleged that Ben-David executed three promissory notes and that she defaulted on each note. Count I alleged a principal balance due of $14,539.83 on a note executed on July 12, 1994; Count II alleged a principal balance due of $9,040.18 on a second note executed on August 11, 1995; and Count III alleged a principal balance due of $6,876.45 on a third note executed on February 21, 1996. After a jury trial, the circuit court entered a final judgment in favor of TERI in the amount of $40,493.77, plus interest.
On appeal, Ben-David raised numerous challenges to the final judgment including subject matter jurisdiction. Because we find that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the judgment is void and we need not address the other issues raised by Ben-David. See Strommen v. Strommen, 927 So. 2d 176, 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“A trial court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction makes its judgments void.... ”); Fedan Corp. v. Reina, 695 So. 2d 1282, 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (judgment rendered by court is void if court lacks subject matter jurisdiction).
“Subject matter jurisdiction — the ‘power of the trial court to deal with a class of cases to which a particular case belongs’ — is conferred upon a court by constitution or by statute.” Strommen, 927 So. 2d at 179 (quoting Cunningham v. Standard Guar. Ins. Co., 630 So. 2d 179, 181 (Fla.1994)).
Pursuant to section 34.01(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2007), jurisdiction properly lies in the county court for all actions at law in which the matter in controversy “does not exceed the sum of $15,000, exclusive of interest, cost, and attorney’s fees.” Claims may not be aggregated to confer jurisdiction in the circuit court unless the claims are related to one another or arise from the same “transaction or" circumstances or occurrence.” Burkhart v. Gowin, 86 Fla. 376, 98 So. 140, 142 (1923); accord State v. Chillingworth, 100 Fla. 489, 129 So. 816, 817-18 (1930); Milhet Caterers, Inc. v. N.W. Meat, Inc., 185 So. 2d 196, 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Canonico v. Devine, 130 So. 2d 319, 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). As the Florida Supreme Court explained:
[SJeparate, unrelated, distinct, and wholly independent demands, as promissory notes given for wholly unrelated and separate items of indebtedness, ... where there is nothing in the notes or in the pleadings to show a composite or other relation between , the notes that were given at different times ... such demands, being separate and unrelated and within the jurisdiction of a lower court, may not be joined or aggregated to make up the amount to give jurisdiction to a superior court. Burkhart, 98 So. at 142; accord Batts v. Dep’t of Educ., 631 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (four separate promissory notes could not be aggregated to meet jurisdictional requirement of circuit court).
In this matter, TERI sought recovery for three separate notes executed on different dates for varying durations and purposes. Two were for different academic years, and one was a Bar Examination Loan. Because each note was separate and wholly distinct from the others, the notes could not be aggregated to meet the $15,000 jurisdictional threshold necessary to confer jurisdiction on the circuit court.
Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court’s entry of final judgment and remand with directions to the circuit court to vacate the final judgment and transfer the case to the county court pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.060(a). See Batts, 631 So. 2d at 370; Canonico, 130 So. 2d at 321-22.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Edwards v. Crews, 124 So. 3d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…deficiencies in the documents are discovered, section 944.17(5), Florida Statutes contains no indication that the Florida Legislature created a legal cause of action for prisoners to enforce the documentary requirements therein. See Sykes v. State, 974 So. 2d 1138 (Fla.1st DCA 2008). Likewise, the statute does not provide that any omission or lack of compliance by the Department of Corrections or any correctional institution might have any effect upon the validity of the court’s judgment and sentence or confe…
-
Varga v. Edgefield Holdings, LLC, 252 So. 3d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.060(a) ; Ben-David v. Educ. Res. Inst., Inc., 974 So. 2d 1138, 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (reversing the entry of the final judgment because the $15,000 jurisdictional threshold to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the circuit court was not met, and transferring the case to the county court pursuant to Florid…
-
LLP v. Swearingen (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2013)…d separate promissory notes, the amounts could not be aggregated to meet the then existing $5,000 jurisdictional requirement to confer jurisdiction on the circuit court). Am Ex also cites Ilana Ben-David v. The Education Resources Institute, Inc., 974 So. 2d 1138, 1139- 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (involving an action filed in circuit court relating to three promissory notes totaling $30,510.46 and holding that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and reasoning that “separate, unrelated, distinct…
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
- Cunningham v. Standard Guar. Ins. Co., 630 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1994)
- Strommen v. Strommen, 927 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Burkhart v. Gowin, 86 Fla. 376 (Fla. 1923)
- Joyce v. Shingary (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
- State v. Chillingworth, 100 Fla. 489 (Fla. 1930)
- Milhet Caterers, Inc. v. N. W. Meat, Inc., 185 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Attilio G. Canonico and Mary E. Canonico v. Barney Devine, 130 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Fedan Corp. v. Milva Reina, 695 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Montero v. State, 631 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)