MILHET CATERERS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
NORTH WESTERN MEAT, INC., A FLORIDA 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.
North Western Meat sued Milhet Caterers for merchandise sold and a promissory note. The circuit court entered summary judgment for North Western Meat on all three claims. Milhet appealed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction over two merchandise claims that individually fell below the jurisdictional minimum, contending unrelated claims cannot be joined solely to invoke jurisdiction.
The circuit court had jurisdiction to entertain and determine all three claims because one of the demands was sufficient in amount to invoke the jurisdiction of the circuit court, even though two of the unrelated claims individually fell below the jurisdictional minimum.
“We hold that because one of the demands was sufficient in amount to invoke the jurisdiction of the circuit court, that court had jurisdiction to entertain and determine all three demands.”
States the core holding of the case regarding jurisdiction over multiple unrelated claims when one meets the jurisdictional minimum.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNorth Western Meat filed suit against Milhet Caterers in circuit court joining three unrelated claims: two for merchandise sold and delivered, each be…
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 Amount cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellee North Western Meat, Inc., filed an action against the appellant Mil-het Caterers, Inc., in the circuit court in Dade County joining three demands. Two were for merchandise sold and delivered, and neither of them met the jurisdictional amount in that court. A third claim, unrelated to the first two, sought recovery on a promissory note of an amount in excess of $12,000, and was within the jurisdiction of the circuit court. Summary judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.
The sole question presented for determination is whether the circuit court had *197jurisdiction of the two claims for merchandise sold. We hold that because one of the demands was sufficient in amount to invoke the jurisdiction of the circuit court, that court had jurisdiction to entertain and determine all three demands.
It has been held consistently that unrelated claims, no one of which meets the minimal jurisdictional amount, may not be combined to gain jurisdiction. See: Director General of Railroads v. Wilford, 81 Fla. 430, 88 So. 256; Burkhart v. Gowin, 86 Fla. 376, 98 So. 140; State ex rel. City of West Palm Beach v. Chillingsworth, 100 Fla. 489, 129 So. 816; Canonico v. Devine, Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 319.
The appellant contends that when several unrelated demands are joined with only one meeting the jurisdictional requirement, the court is without jurisdiction of those demands so joined which are for less. We have been shown no square holding of a Florida court to that effect. This court expressed a view contrary to appellant’s contention, in the case of Canonico v. Devine, supra, where it was said, “Separate and unrelated demands cannot be joined to give jurisdiction to a court which does not have jurisdiction of any one of the claims because each is below the amount required to give jurisdiction to the court.”
We are impelled to affirm the holding of the circuit court that its jurisdiction covered all three demands when one met its jurisdictional requirements as to amount. To hold the contrary would be anomalous and inconsistent with rule 1.13(j) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F. S.A. Under that rule, when a demand is filed in a court of lesser jurisdiction than the circuit court and a counterclaim is filed thereto, whether on a matter related or unrelated to the main claim, for an amount which is beyond the jurisdiction of that court and is within the higher jurisdiction of the circuit court, it is required that the cause be transferred to the circuit court and that court then tries not only the demand presented by the counterclaim, the amount of which is within the jurisdiction of the circuit court, but also takes jurisdiction of and determines the plaintiff’s demand which is for less than the minimum amount required for jurisdiction of a legal demand in the circuit court.
Accordingly the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the conclusion reached by the majority.
To permit plaintiff to maintain, in the circuit court, a cause of action cognizable only in the civil court of record merely by joining it with an unrelated cause of action cognizable in the circuit court would in effect nullify our statutes relative to jurisdiction. It is my view that in the absence of a statute or rule confirming jurisdiction in such a situation the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enter the judgment as to counts one and two, inasmuch as they were below its jurisdiction, and it was error not to have transferred the causes of action stated in counts one and two to the civil court of record.
HENDRY, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the conclusion reached by the majority.
To permit plaintiff to maintain, in the circuit court, a cause of action cognizable only in the civil court of record merely by joining it with an unrelated cause of action cognizable in the circuit court would in effect nullify our statutes relative to jurisdiction. It is my view that in the absence of a statute or rule confirming jurisdiction in such a situation the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enter the judgment as to counts one and two, inasmuch as they were below its jurisdiction, and it was error not to have transferred the causes of action stated in counts one and two to the civil court of record.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zuckerman v. Prof'l Writers OF Fla., Inc., 398 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…cuit court has exclusive jurisdiction over the count for injunc-tive relief, it has jurisdiction over the other causes of action stated in the complaint. Section 26.012, Florida Statutes (1979); see Milhet Caterers, Inc. v. North Western Meat, Inc., 185 So. 2d 196 (Fla.3d DCA 1966). It is further contended by appellants that the trial court erred in denying the motion to dissolve the writ. Section 78.068(6), Florida Statutes (1979) provides that a defendant, by contradictory motion, may obtain the dissoluti…
-
Edgar v. Econ. Opportunity Legal Servs. Program, Inc., 230 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…of the circuit court, that court may not transfer to the civil court of record another count involving an amount insufficient in itself to invoke the jurisdiction of the circuit court. Milhet Caterers, Inc. v. North Western Meat, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 185 So. 2d 196. Cf. cases citing the maxim that (in order to avoid a multiplicity of suits) after obtaining jurisdiction of a case for one purpose a court of equity should retain jurisdiction for all purposes to administer full relief including legal remedies (e.…
-
Ilana Ben-David v. The Educ. Res. Inst., Inc., 974 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…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 separat…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Dir. Gen. of Railroads v. Wilford, 81 Fla. 430 (Fla. 1921)
- Burkhart v. Gowin, 86 Fla. 376 (Fla. 1923)
- Joyce v. Shingary (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
- State v. Chillingworth, 100 Fla. 489 (Fla. 1930)
- Attilio G. Canonico and Mary E. Canonico v. Barney Devine, 130 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)