Summary
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a certified conflict concerning Florida's chapter 51 summary procedures and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(c) in a commercial landlord-tenant dispute. The Court held that the county court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the specifically pleaded ejectment action and could not sua sponte convert it into a tenant-removal action without violating due process. It further held that Rule 1.500(c) generally applies in chapter 51 summary proceedings unless the statute creating the cause of action provides otherwise.
Holdings
- Florida county courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain ejectment actions; ejectment actions are within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the circuit courts.
- A county court may not sua sponte amend a complaint specifically pleading ejectment into a tenant-removal action in order to create subject-matter jurisdiction and apply chapter 51 procedures, particularly without notice and an opportunity for the opposing party to plead and defend.
- The chapter 51 summary procedure does not apply to ejectment actions; standard Florida Rules of Civil Procedure apply to ejectment actions.
- Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(c) generally applies in chapter 51 summary proceedings unless the statute creating the cause of action specifically provides otherwise. A default is improper when a party has pleaded or otherwise defended before default is entered, even if the pleading or defense was untimely.
Questions Presented
- Whether a Florida county court has subject-matter jurisdiction over an action specifically pleaded as ejectment.
- Whether a county court may sua sponte amend an ejectment complaint during a motion hearing to recast it as a tenant-removal action under section 83.21, Florida Statutes.
- Whether Florida's chapter 51 summary procedure applies to ejectment actions.
- Whether Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(c) applies in chapter 51 summary proceedings and prevents entry of default when a party has pleaded or otherwise defended before default is entered.
Disposition
quashed
Cases Cited (32)
- Pro-Art Dental Lab, Inc. v. V-Strategic Group, LLC, 959 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)(quashed)
- Crocker v. Diland Corp., 593 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)(approved)
- Webster Lumber Co. v. Lincoln, 94 Fla. 1097, 115 So. 498 (1927)(followed)
- Bailey v. Bailey, 114 So. 2d 804, 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)(followed)
- Partridge v. Partridge, 940 So. 2d 611, 613 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)(followed)
- Florida Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Robbins, 81 So. 2d 193, 199-200 (Fla. 1955)(followed)
- Paulucci v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 842 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 2003)(followed)
- Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. Paulucci, 797 So. 2d 18, 21 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)(followed)
- Lovett v. Lovett, 93 Fla. 611, 112 So. 768, 775-76 (1927)(followed)
- Carroll & Assocs., P.A. v. Galindo, 864 So. 2d 24, 28-29 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 32.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…