GLUCK, ZACH'S PLUMBING, LLC
v.
WEDGE, D & M ASSETS 5, LLC
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.
Arguments challenging a default judgment are not preserved for appellate review when raised in a motion to set aside filed after a notice of appeal has divested the trial court of jurisdiction.
[1] A notice of appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed with matters related to the final judgment, and arguments raised in a motion to set aside filed afte…
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“An appellate court is reactive; it can only review asserted errors made by lower tribunals. . . . Appellate courts may not decide issues that were not ruled on by a trial court in the first instance.”
Court explaining the principle that appellate courts cannot decide issues not first ruled upon by the trial court
Gluck and Zach's Plumbing were defendants in a small claims action brought by Wedge and D&M Assets 5, LLC for damages from plumbing work. Gluck arrive…
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.500(C) cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
JACOB GLUCK and ZACH'S PLUMBING, LLC,
Appellants,
v.
LEI WEDGE and D&M ASSETS 5, LLC,
Appellees.
No. 2D2024-1328
June 13, 2025
Appeal from the County Court for Hillsborough County; Gaston J. Fernandez, Senior Judge.
Jacob Gluck, pro se.
Samuel L. Wenzel, Jr., of Wenzel Law, PLLC, Tampa, for Appellant Zach's Plumbing, LLC.
No appearance for Appellees.
SLEET, Chief Judge.
Jacob Gluck and Zach's Plumbing, LLC, challenge the final judgment of default in the small claims action brought against them by Lei Wedge and D&M Assets 5, LLC. We affirm.
The trial court denied this motion on June 5, 2024. On that same day, the court entered its final judgment, wherein it noted that Mr. Gluck had failed to appear, indicated that it heard testimony on Wedge and D&M's claims, and ordered that Wedge and D&M "recover from the Defendant(s) Jacob Gluck; Zach's Plumbing LLC, the principal sum of $7,385.00, with costs of $320.00, making a total of $7,705.00, that shall bear interest at the [statutory] quarterly interest rate."
Mr. Gluck then filed a pro se notice of appeal on June 6, 2024, but then on June 24, 2024, filed a motion to set aside final judgment pursuant to Florida Small Claims Rule 7.190. The trial court, however, has not ruled on that motion as the notice of appeal divested it of jurisdiction to do so. See Mann-Stack v. Homeside Lending, Inc., 982 So. 2d 72, 72-74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (explaining that after a notice of appeal is filed, the trial court is "divested of jurisdiction to proceed with matters
On appeal, Mr. Gluck argues (1) that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(b) requires that a default judgment cannot be entered unless there is evidence that the party has no intention of participating in the action; (2) that under rule 1.500(c), he was entitled to notification of the default before the final judgment could be entered; (3) that under rule 1.500(e), the plaintiffs were still required to prove their damages; and (4) that the trial court could not have conducted an evidentiary hearing between 10 a.m. and when the trial adjourned at 10:15 a.m. Mr. Gluck also argues that he is entitled to have the final judgment set aside based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
However, these arguments are not preserved for review in this appeal. Although Mr. Gluck raised them in his motion to set aside the final judgment, he filed that motion after he filed his notice of appeal. Based on its lack of jurisdiction, the trial court has not ruled on these arguments, and we cannot do so in the first instance. See Maynard v. Fla. Bd. of Educ. ex rel. Univ. of S. Fla., 998 So. 2d 1201, 1207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ("An appellate court is reactive; it can only review asserted errors made by lower tribunals. . . . Appellate courts may not decide issues that were not ruled on by a trial court in the first instance." (quoting Sierra ex rel. Sierra v. Pub. Health Tr. of Dade Cnty., 661 So. 2d 1296, 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995))). We therefore must affirm the final judgment. Affirmed. NORTHCUTT and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.