Pro-Art Dental Lab, Inc. v. V-Strategic Group, LLC

986 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2008) · Supreme Court of Florida · July 10, 2008 · No. SC07-1397

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

  1. Florida county courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain ejectment actions; ejectment actions are within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the circuit courts.
  2. 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.
  3. The chapter 51 summary procedure does not apply to ejectment actions; standard Florida Rules of Civil Procedure apply to ejectment actions.
  4. 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

  1. Whether a Florida county court has subject-matter jurisdiction over an action specifically pleaded as ejectment.
  2. 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.
  3. Whether Florida's chapter 51 summary procedure applies to ejectment actions.
  4. 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 PDF
Loading document…