FERNANDO VIDAL MENDEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSE A. ORTEGA, 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 Circuit Court of Dade County entered summary judgment for $5,000 in a simple loan dispute, but the Florida appellate court reversed and remanded because the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a case where the amount in controversy did not exceed $5,000. The court was obligated to notice this jurisdictional defect sua sponte despite the parties' failure to raise it.
No. The Circuit Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the cause of action did not exceed $5,000 exclusive of interest and costs. Such cases fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Court of Record in Dade County, and the circuit court was required to notice this jurisdictional defect sua sponte and transfer the case to the proper court.
“Courts are bound to take notice of the limits of their authority and if want of jurisdiction appears at any stage of the proceedings original or appellate, the court should notice the defect and enter an appropriate order.”
Establishes the mandatory nature of sua sponte review of subject matter jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee sued appellant in Circuit Court for $5,000, alleging he had loaned that sum to appellant and demanded repayment, which was refused. Appellant…
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 Jurisdiction Of Circuit Court cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, defendant below, was sued by the appellee, plaintiff below, in the Circuit Court, Dade County, Florida, for the sum of $5,000. The complaint alleges that the sum was loaned to the defendant and was to have been repaid on demand; that a demand was made; and that payment of the loan was refused. The defendant answered generally denying the allegations of the complaint. Motion for summary judgment was made by -the plaintiff, and after argument of opposing counsel, summary judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $5,000 plus costs; the court also entered a judgment in garnishment for the amount of the aforesaid judgment against defendant’s bank, as garnishee. The bank has assigned several errors which are primarily concerned with tender by the debtor and the medium for the payment of *248the debt. While we find that the assigned errors are without foundation in law we must nevertheless reverse and remand the case to the trial court on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter. This must be done despite the fact that the question of jurisdiction was not raised by the pleadings or otherwise presented. Courts are bound to take notice of the limits of their authority and if want of jurisdiction appears at any stage of the proceedings original or appellate, the court should notice the defect and enter an appropriate order. Bohlinger v. Higginbotham, Fla.1954, 70 So. 2d 911; West 132 Feet v. City of Orlando, 80 Fla. 233, 86 So. 197; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 20.
In the case of Canonico v. Devine, Fla.App., 130 So.2d 319, 321, the court stated:
“The jurisdiction of the circuit court in Dade County in actions at law is of those cases where the matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and cost, exceeds the sum of $5,000.
“'The jurisdiction of courts in this state is regulated by the Constitution or by statutes duly enacted pursuant to the Constitution. Section 11 [now § 6] of Article V of the Constitution of Florida, F.S.A., fixes the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of the State, including the Circuit Court of Dade County, by giving them “exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases in equity, also in all cases at law, not cognizable by inferior courts, and in all cases involving the legality of any tax, assessment, or toll; of the action of ejectment and of all actions involving the titles or boundaries of real estate, and of all criminal cases not cognizable by inferior courts; and original jurisdiction of actions of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, and of such other matters as the Legislature may provide.” ' ”
In Dade County, Florida, the Civil Court of Record of Dade County, is given original jurisdiction of all cases at law where the matter in controversy does not exceed, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of $5,000, and proceedings relating to forceful entry and unlawful detention of lands and tenements, including any statutory remedy relating to landlord and tenant, except when some other court under the Constitution shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of any such actions. Section 33.14, Fla. Stat., F.S.A.
The cause of action on the $5,000 debt did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement because it does not exceed $5,000 exclusive of interest and cost.
If at any time it should appear that a suit is pending in the wrong court of any county it may be transferred to the proper court within the county. Rule 1.39(b), F.R.C.P., 30 F.S.A.
The circuit court being without jurisdiction to enter the judgments appealed they are hereby vacated and the cause is remanded to the circuit court so that the cause may be transferred for further proceedings-in accordance with Rule 1.39, F.R.C.P., to> the Civil Court of Record.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Greene v. Greene, 432 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…atal. “Courts are bound to take notice of the limits of their authority and if want of jurisdiction appears at any stage of the proceedings, original or appellate, the court should notice the defect and enter an appropriate order.” Mendez v. Ortega, 134 So. 2d 247, 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), citing Bohlinger v. Higginbotham, 70 So. 2d 911 (Fla.1954). Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, failure to object, or waiver. Wilds v. Permenter, 228 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). For cases factuall…
-
Colucci v. Greenfield, 547 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…65 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Pushkin v. Lombard, 279 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 284 So. 2d 396 (Fla.1973); Walton v. Walton, 181 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); Hadley v. Hadley, 140 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); Mendez v. Ortega, 134 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961); Pittman v. Roberts, 122 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); Florio v. State, 119 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); In re Coleman’s Estate, 103 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958); In re Weiss’ Estate, 102 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. discha…
-
Henry's Drive-In, Inc. v. Ideal Rock Prods. Co., 140 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…0. § 33.14, Fla.Stat., 1959, F.S.A. Although the jurisdictional defect was not called to the attention of this court by the appellant, this defect being fundamental in nature it may be raised sua sponte by the court. Mendez v. Ortega, Fla.App. 1961, 134 So. 2d 247; F.A.R. 3.7(i), 31 F. S.A. When it became apparent to the trial court that the amount in controversy exceeded its jurisdiction, it should have entered an order transferring the cause to the proper court within the county. F.R.C.P. 1.39(b), 30 F.S.A.…
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
- Bohlinger v. Higginbotham, 70 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1954)
- W. 132 Feet of S. Half of Se. Quarter of Sw. Quarter of Sw. Quarter of Section Twenty-six v. The City of Orlando, 80 Fla. 233 (Fla. 1920)
- Attilio G. Canonico and Mary E. Canonico v. Barney Devine, 130 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)