42
Fla. L. Weekly D2408bTop of Form
Fla. L. Weekly D2408bTop of Form
Civil
procedure — Relief from judgment — Final judgment entered by circuit court
was not void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, although damages awarded
were less than $15,000, where complaint, in good faith, sought damages in
excess of $15,000, conferring jurisdiction on circuit court notwithstanding
ultimate damage award
procedure — Relief from judgment — Final judgment entered by circuit court
was not void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, although damages awarded
were less than $15,000, where complaint, in good faith, sought damages in
excess of $15,000, conferring jurisdiction on circuit court notwithstanding
ultimate damage award
JULIO PLUTT, an individual, JAZWARES
DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Florida Corporation, BRIGHT PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida
Corporation, Appellants, v. MICHELE ROSS, Appellee. 4th District. Case No.
4D17-1906. November 8, 2017. Appeal of non-final order from the Circuit Court
for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; John T. Luzzo, Judge;
L.T. Case No. 09-10145. Counsel: Geoffrey D. Ittleman of The Law Offices of
Geoffrey D. Ittleman, P.A., for appellants. Melissa E. Roque and Steven D.
Gonzalez of Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC, for appellee.
DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Florida Corporation, BRIGHT PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida
Corporation, Appellants, v. MICHELE ROSS, Appellee. 4th District. Case No.
4D17-1906. November 8, 2017. Appeal of non-final order from the Circuit Court
for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; John T. Luzzo, Judge;
L.T. Case No. 09-10145. Counsel: Geoffrey D. Ittleman of The Law Offices of
Geoffrey D. Ittleman, P.A., for appellants. Melissa E. Roque and Steven D.
Gonzalez of Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC, for appellee.
(FORST, J.) Julio Plutt, Jazwares
Distribution, Inc., and Bright Products, Inc. (“Appellants”) appeal the circuit
court’s denial of their Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) motion to
vacate a final judgment awarding Appellee Michele Ross $7,092.56. In their
motion, Appellants contended that the final judgment entered by the circuit
court was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in
controversy did not exceed $15,000. We affirm because the complaint, in good
faith, sought damages in excess of $15,000, conferring jurisdiction on the
circuit court notwithstanding the ultimate damage award.
Distribution, Inc., and Bright Products, Inc. (“Appellants”) appeal the circuit
court’s denial of their Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) motion to
vacate a final judgment awarding Appellee Michele Ross $7,092.56. In their
motion, Appellants contended that the final judgment entered by the circuit
court was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in
controversy did not exceed $15,000. We affirm because the complaint, in good
faith, sought damages in excess of $15,000, conferring jurisdiction on the
circuit court notwithstanding the ultimate damage award.
Background
In 2009, Appellee filed a complaint
against Appellants in Broward County circuit court. She alleged that Appellants
breached a contract in which she agreed to author children’s books in exchange
for a royalty or commission on all book sales, ranging from 1.5 to 3.5 percent.
Appellee further alleged that Appellants failed to provide any of the
agreed-upon compensation despite her performance under the contract. Regarding
damages, Appellee alleged: “All claims made herein are for damages in access
[sic] of $15,000.00, exclusive of attorneys’ fees, interest and costs.”
against Appellants in Broward County circuit court. She alleged that Appellants
breached a contract in which she agreed to author children’s books in exchange
for a royalty or commission on all book sales, ranging from 1.5 to 3.5 percent.
Appellee further alleged that Appellants failed to provide any of the
agreed-upon compensation despite her performance under the contract. Regarding
damages, Appellee alleged: “All claims made herein are for damages in access
[sic] of $15,000.00, exclusive of attorneys’ fees, interest and costs.”
Following years of litigation and
discovery, Appellee successfully moved for a default. Appellee then filed a
motion for summary judgment. The motion stated that the proceeds from the sales
of Appellee’s books amounted to $202,644.81. Based on the formula in the
subject contract, Appellee asserted that Appellants owed her $7,092.56 “in
royalties.” However, she also claimed to have suffered total damages of
$209,737.37, which was the sum of the royalties and the sale proceeds. The
trial court entered an order granting the motion for summary judgment and
stating that Appellee was entitled to $7,092.56 in damages. The final judgment
awarded that amount, in addition to costs and pre-judgment interest, for a
total award of $13,695.58.
discovery, Appellee successfully moved for a default. Appellee then filed a
motion for summary judgment. The motion stated that the proceeds from the sales
of Appellee’s books amounted to $202,644.81. Based on the formula in the
subject contract, Appellee asserted that Appellants owed her $7,092.56 “in
royalties.” However, she also claimed to have suffered total damages of
$209,737.37, which was the sum of the royalties and the sale proceeds. The
trial court entered an order granting the motion for summary judgment and
stating that Appellee was entitled to $7,092.56 in damages. The final judgment
awarded that amount, in addition to costs and pre-judgment interest, for a
total award of $13,695.58.
More than a year after entry of the
final judgment, Appellants filed a motion to vacate. They asserted that the
circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Appellee stated in her
summary judgment motion that she was due $7,092.56 in damages for unpaid
royalties. Appellants argued that Appellee effectively acknowledged that the
court was without jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not exceed
the $15,000 threshold needed to invoke the circuit court’s jurisdiction.
final judgment, Appellants filed a motion to vacate. They asserted that the
circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Appellee stated in her
summary judgment motion that she was due $7,092.56 in damages for unpaid
royalties. Appellants argued that Appellee effectively acknowledged that the
court was without jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not exceed
the $15,000 threshold needed to invoke the circuit court’s jurisdiction.
The trial court entered an order
denying the motion to vacate without explanation. This non-final appeal
follows. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5).
denying the motion to vacate without explanation. This non-final appeal
follows. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5).
Analysis
We generally review a trial court’s
ruling on a motion to vacate for an abuse of discretion. Vercosa v. Fields,
174 So. 3d 550, 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). However, “[w]hether a judgment is void
is a question of law reviewed de novo.” Id.
ruling on a motion to vacate for an abuse of discretion. Vercosa v. Fields,
174 So. 3d 550, 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). However, “[w]hether a judgment is void
is a question of law reviewed de novo.” Id.
A party may move at any time to
vacate a final judgment as void due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Kathleen
G. Kozinski, P.A. v. Phillips, 126 So. 3d 1264, 1268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
Florida circuit courts have subject matter jurisdiction over actions at law in
which the matter in controversy exceeds $15,000, exclusive of interest, costs,
and attorney’s fees. See §§ 26.012(2)(a) and 34.01(1)(c), Fla. Stat.
(2016). “[A] court’s subject matter jurisdiction over a case generally depends
on the good-faith allegations in the complaint as to an amount in controversy.”
Bogdanoff v. Broken Sound Club, Inc., 154 So. 3d 410, 411 (Fla. 4th DCA
2014). “The test in determining the jurisdiction of the court ‘is the amount in
good faith claimed or put in controversy when the action is commenced.’ ” Thibadeau
v. Santini Bros., Inc., 315 So. 2d 550, 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (quoting Castellano
v. Bader Bros. Van Lines, Inc., 208 So. 2d 842, 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)).
vacate a final judgment as void due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Kathleen
G. Kozinski, P.A. v. Phillips, 126 So. 3d 1264, 1268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
Florida circuit courts have subject matter jurisdiction over actions at law in
which the matter in controversy exceeds $15,000, exclusive of interest, costs,
and attorney’s fees. See §§ 26.012(2)(a) and 34.01(1)(c), Fla. Stat.
(2016). “[A] court’s subject matter jurisdiction over a case generally depends
on the good-faith allegations in the complaint as to an amount in controversy.”
Bogdanoff v. Broken Sound Club, Inc., 154 So. 3d 410, 411 (Fla. 4th DCA
2014). “The test in determining the jurisdiction of the court ‘is the amount in
good faith claimed or put in controversy when the action is commenced.’ ” Thibadeau
v. Santini Bros., Inc., 315 So. 2d 550, 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (quoting Castellano
v. Bader Bros. Van Lines, Inc., 208 So. 2d 842, 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)).
Once jurisdiction is properly
invoked by filing the complaint, “the circuit court retain[s] jurisdiction to
enter an award, irrespective of the amount.”1 Cooperativa De Seguros Multiples
De v. Cintron, 44 So. 3d 623, 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (Torpy, J.,
concurring); see also Thibadeau, 315 So. 2d at 552; PHILIP J. PADOVANO,
FLORIDA CIVIL PRACTICE § 1.5 (2016 ed.) (“If the jurisdiction of the circuit
court is invoked by a proper allegation, it will not be defeated on the ground
that the award of damages is less than the jurisdictional amount for filing a
case in the circuit court.”).
invoked by filing the complaint, “the circuit court retain[s] jurisdiction to
enter an award, irrespective of the amount.”1 Cooperativa De Seguros Multiples
De v. Cintron, 44 So. 3d 623, 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (Torpy, J.,
concurring); see also Thibadeau, 315 So. 2d at 552; PHILIP J. PADOVANO,
FLORIDA CIVIL PRACTICE § 1.5 (2016 ed.) (“If the jurisdiction of the circuit
court is invoked by a proper allegation, it will not be defeated on the ground
that the award of damages is less than the jurisdictional amount for filing a
case in the circuit court.”).
In this case, Appellee asserted in
her complaint that “[a]ll claims made herein are for damages in access [sic] of
$15,000.00, exclusive of attorneys’ fees, interest and costs.” There is no
evidence in the record that Appellee’s claim for damages in excess of $15,000
in her complaint was not made in good faith (the lower amount sought by
Appellee in her subsequent motion for summary judgment was calculated from
sales numbers obtained only in the course of discovery). Moreover, Appellants
explicitly conceded the “good faith” issue in their reply brief. Cf. Cintron,
44 So. 3d at 625 (Orfinger, J., dissenting) (stating that, where plaintiff knew
damages were below jurisdictional threshold when filing amended complaint, the
plaintiff’s claim for damages in excess of $15,000 “could not have . . . been
made in good faith”).
her complaint that “[a]ll claims made herein are for damages in access [sic] of
$15,000.00, exclusive of attorneys’ fees, interest and costs.” There is no
evidence in the record that Appellee’s claim for damages in excess of $15,000
in her complaint was not made in good faith (the lower amount sought by
Appellee in her subsequent motion for summary judgment was calculated from
sales numbers obtained only in the course of discovery). Moreover, Appellants
explicitly conceded the “good faith” issue in their reply brief. Cf. Cintron,
44 So. 3d at 625 (Orfinger, J., dissenting) (stating that, where plaintiff knew
damages were below jurisdictional threshold when filing amended complaint, the
plaintiff’s claim for damages in excess of $15,000 “could not have . . . been
made in good faith”).
Conclusion
The circuit court in this case had
subject matter jurisdiction at the time it entered the final judgment because
it had jurisdiction at the time Appellee filed the complaint, where she sought
in good faith, damages in excess of $15,000. Consequently, the subsequent
motion to vacate was without merit.
subject matter jurisdiction at the time it entered the final judgment because
it had jurisdiction at the time Appellee filed the complaint, where she sought
in good faith, damages in excess of $15,000. Consequently, the subsequent
motion to vacate was without merit.
Affirmed. (WARNER, J., concurs. GROSS, J., concurs in result.)
__________________
1While this
means a circuit court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for $15,000 or less
(assuming a good-faith demand in the complaint), “notwithstanding the bona
fides of the plaintiff’s demand at the time of institution of suit, as a matter
of judicial power the county court is precluded from entering a judgment
for damages in excess of its mandated jurisdiction.” White v. Marine Transp.
Lines, Inc., 372 So. 2d 81, 84 (Fla. 1979) (emphasis added); accord
Bogdanoff, 154 So. 3d at 411.
means a circuit court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for $15,000 or less
(assuming a good-faith demand in the complaint), “notwithstanding the bona
fides of the plaintiff’s demand at the time of institution of suit, as a matter
of judicial power the county court is precluded from entering a judgment
for damages in excess of its mandated jurisdiction.” White v. Marine Transp.
Lines, Inc., 372 So. 2d 81, 84 (Fla. 1979) (emphasis added); accord
Bogdanoff, 154 So. 3d at 411.
* * *