RENEWPRO INC.
v.
ANALIA M CARBO

Fla. 5th DCA | 2025-03-28
No. 2024-1824
Wallis, J., Soud, J., Boatwright, J., Jacobus, C.J.
2025 FL 2692 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2025)

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.

Holding

A county court judgment for damages exceeding its jurisdictional limit is void, even if the plaintiff's good faith demand at the time of filing fell within the court's jurisdiction.

Headnotes

[1] A county court's judgment for damages exceeding its jurisdictional limit is void as a matter of judicial power, regardless of whether the plaintiff's good faith demand at…

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 intelligence
Key Quotes

“notwithstanding the bona fides of the plaintiff's demand at the time of institution of suit, as a matter of judicial power the county court is precluded from entering a judgment for damages in excess of its mandated jurisdiction.”

Florida Supreme Court's test for county court jurisdiction in White v. Marine Transp. Lines, Inc., 372 So. 2d 81, 84 (Fla. 1979)
Facts & Procedural History

Renewpro Inc. agreed to repair Analia Carbo's roof for $10,867.27 with a one-year warranty. After the repair, the roof leaked and Renewpro refused to …

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.

Topics
Breach Of Warranty Breach Of Contract

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Breach Of Warranty cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
Boatwright

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2024-1824 LT Case No. 05-2020-CC-55261 _____________________________

RENEWPRO INC.,

Appellant,

v.

ANALIA M. CARBO,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the County Court for Brevard County. Kathryn C. Jacobus, Judge.

Adrian Middleton, of Middleton & Middleton, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Stephen Biggie, of Stephen Biggie, Esq., Melbourne, for Appellee.

March 28, 2025

WALLIS, J.

Appellant, Renewpro, Inc., appeals an order granting final summary judgment in favor of Appellee, Analia Carbo. Appellant argues that the county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the order. We agree and reverse.

Appellant and Appellee entered into an agreement wherein Appellee agreed to pay Appellant $10,867.27 and, in exchange,

Appellee’s county court complaint alleged that the cause of action “exceeds $8,000.00 exclusive of fees and costs, but does not exceed $30,000.00 exclusive of fees and costs.” The court later granted Appellee’s motion for summary judgment, specifically finding that it had jurisdiction because “the original amount sought in litigation fell within the jurisdictional limits of County Court.” However, the county court awarded Appellee $50,600 in damages, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney’s fees.

On appeal, Appellant claims that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the order because the damages awarded exceeded the county court’s jurisdictional limit. When this action was filed, the county court had jurisdiction over actions at law “in which the matter in controversy does not exceed, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney’s fees . . . the sum of $30,000.” § 34.01(1)(c)2., Fla. Stat. (2021).1 Lines, Inc., 372 So. 2d 81, 84 (Fla. 1979). A judgment in excess of the county court’s jurisdictional limit is void. Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Sutton, 44

1 For county court actions filed after January1, 2023, the jurisdiction limit is $50,000. § 34.01(1)(c)3., Fla. Stat. (2021).

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

SOUD and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

Footnotes
1 The Florida Supreme Court has explained the test for jurisdiction as follow: It is apparent, then, that the test for jurisdiction is twofold. In the first instance, the good faith demand of the plaintiff at the time of instituting suit determines the ability of the particular court to entertain the action. However, notwithstanding the bona fides of the plaintiff’s demand at the time of institution of suit, as a matter of judicial power the county court is precluded from entering a judgment for damages in excess of its mandated jurisdiction. White v. Marine Transp.
2 Appellant would repair Appellee’s roof with a one-year warranty on repairs. After Appellant performed the work, Appellee’s roof began to leak and Appellant refused to repair the leak under the terms of the warranty.
3 So. 946, 948 (Fla. 1907); Exquisite Carpet & Interiors, Inc. v. Martinez, 353 So. 3d 683, 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022). Here, Appellee’s allegations in the complaint met the first step of the analysis in White. However, because the county court entered a judgment for damages exceeding its jurisdictional limit of $30,000, exclusive of fees and costs, the judgment was void. See White, 372 So. 2d at 84; Louisville & N.R. Co., 44 So. at 948; Exquisite Carpet & Interiors, Inc., 353 So. 3d at 685. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. “[I]f the county court determines that the amount in controversy (exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney fees) exceeds the prescribed jurisdictional limit . . . the county court should transfer this action to the circuit court.” Exquisite Carpet & Interiors, Inc., 353 So. 3d at 685.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw