TIFFANY MARTIN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JODY COVERT
v.
EDWARD W. BUTTNER
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.
A trial court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction makes its judgments void and such lack of jurisdiction cannot be conferred by waiver, acquiescence, or agreement of the parties.
[1] A trial court's determination of whether it possesses subject matter jurisdiction presents a question of law reviewed de novo on appeal.
[2] Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon a court by waiver, acquiescence, or agreement of the parties, and any judgment rendered by a court lacking subject ma…
Previewing 2 of 2 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, and a void judgment can be attacked at any time, even collaterally.”
Court explaining the fundamental principle that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived
Tiffany Martin, as personal representative of Jody Covert's estate, appealed a trial court decision regarding whether the court had subject matter jur…
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 Void Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed September 20, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-1665 Lower Tribunal No. 18-12926
________________
Tiffany Martin, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jody Covert,
Appellant,
vs.
Edward W. Buttner, IV,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria Elena Verde, Judge. Barry S. Franklin & Associates, P.A., and Barry S. Franklin, for appellant. Nancy A. Hass, P.A., and Nancy A. Hass (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee. Before LINDSEY, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Diaz, 227 So. 3d 726, 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“As a trial court’s ruling on whether a judgment is void presents a question of law, an appellate court reviews the trial court’s ruling de novo.”); Colucci v. Greenfield, 547 So. 2d 224, 225 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (“The law is well-settled that the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time.”) (emphasis in original); Strommen v. Strommen, 927 So. 2d 176, 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“[Subject matter jurisdiction] cannot be conferred by waiver, acquiescence, or agreement of the parties. A trial court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction makes its judgments void, and a void judgment can be attacked at any time, even collaterally.”) (internal citation omitted); In re Riha’s Estate, 369 So. 2d 404, 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (“A court may enter an order nunc pro tunc to correct the record of an order [a]ctually made, which was either entered incorrectly in the court records or not entered at all. However, when the court wholly omits an order or wishes to change it, the new order cannot be entered nunc pro tunc.”) (internal citation omitted).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strommen v. Strommen, 927 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Colucci v. Greenfield, 547 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Diaz, 227 So. 3d 726 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- In re the Est. of James Riha v. Harding, 369 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)