“Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Peace” – The Florida Supreme Court Declares Case (Procedural) Jurisdiction Waivable in JJJTB, Inc. v. Schmidt

1. Introduction

On 17 July 2025, the Supreme Court of Florida settled a conflict that had divided the state’s districts for more than two decades: Is the trial court’s case (procedural) jurisdiction an objection that can be waived if not raised timely, or—like subject-matter jurisdiction—may it be raised at any stage of the proceedings?

The petitioner, JJJTB, Inc., a mortgagee seeking foreclosure, and the respondents, Stephen V. Schmidt and Schmidt Farms, Inc., had already litigated one foreclosure effort to final judgment in 2015. Two years later JJJTB obtained leave to amend its complaint to sue on new defaults. The trial court ultimately granted foreclosure in 2021 after a full bench trial. For the first time on appeal, Schmidt argued the court had “no jurisdiction” to proceed once it had entered the 2015 final order. The Second District Court of Appeal accepted that argument and reversed, holding that case jurisdiction, like subject-matter jurisdiction, is non-waivable. It certified conflict with the Fourth District’s earlier decision in MCR Funding v. CMG Funding Corp.

The Florida Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Labarga (with Justice Couriel concurring separately), emphatically rejected the Second District’s view and realigned Florida jurisprudence by ruling that objections to case jurisdiction are waivable when not timely asserted.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Court quashed the Second District’s decision in Schmidt and approved the Fourth District’s approach in MCR Funding.
• It drew a sharp distinction between three types of jurisdiction:

Subject-matter jurisdiction – cannot be created by party consent and can never be waived.
Personal jurisdiction – protects an individual defendant’s liberty interest; it can be waived if not timely raised.
Case (procedural/continuing) jurisdiction – the court’s power to act in a case given its procedural posture; also waivable.

Because Schmidt failed to challenge the court’s case jurisdiction in either its motion to dismiss or its answer—and even sought affirmative relief—the objection was waived. The foreclosure judgment therefore stands.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influences

MCR Funding v. CMG Funding Corp., 771 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) – Held that case jurisdiction is waivable. The Supreme Court expressly approved this view, elevating it to statewide precedent.
Allen v. Helms, 293 So. 3d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020); U.S. Bank N.A. v. Anthony-Irish, 204 So. 3d 57 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) – Explained fluctuation of case jurisdiction after final orders; cited to illustrate doctrinal background.
Paulucci v. General Dynamics Corp., 842 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2003) – Recognised “continuing jurisdiction” as distinct from subject-matter jurisdiction.
Polk County v. Sofka, 702 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 1997); Cunningham v. Standard Guar. Ins. Co., 630 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1994) – Reaffirmed that subject-matter jurisdiction is unwaivable; juxtaposed here to highlight the difference.
Arcadia Citrus Growers Ass’n v. Hollingsworth, 185 So. 431 (Fla. 1938); Malone v. Meres, 109 So. 677 (Fla. 1926) – Early Florida cases distinguishing jurisdiction to hear a class of cases from power to act in a particular case.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(h)(1) & (2) – Codifies waiver of defenses not timely raised, except subject-matter jurisdiction.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Conceptual Separation – The Court clarified terminological confusion. Subject-matter jurisdiction flows from constitutional/statutory grants; case jurisdiction depends on the procedural status of a specific lawsuit.
Rule-Based Waiver – Rule 1.140(h)(1) waives any defense not raised by motion or responsive pleading, unless it falls within the narrow exceptions of Rule 1.140(h)(2) (which lists only subject-matter jurisdiction, indispensable parties, and failure to state a cause of action).
Fairness and Efficiency – Allowing litigants to lie in wait and spring case-jurisdiction objections on appeal undermines finality, encourages gamesmanship, and burdens the judiciary. Parties must “speak now.”
Practical Illustration – After the 2015 final judgment, the trial court indeed lost procedural authority. But by seeking an amended complaint and litigating for two years without protest, Schmidt voluntarily restored the court’s practical authority. The Court analogised this to personal-jurisdiction waiver.
Conflict Resolution – Because the Fourth District’s MCR Funding comported with this view and the Second District’s Schmidt did not, the latter was quashed to eliminate intra-state conflict.

3.3 Potential Impact

1. Litigation Conduct – Attorneys must raise procedural-jurisdiction defects early or risk forfeiture. The ruling will likely prompt more vigilant motion practice immediately after complaints are amended post-final-judgment.
2. Appellate Strategy – “Gotcha” appeals predicated on overlooked case-jurisdiction flaws will largely disappear; appellate courts can dismiss such arguments as waived.
3. Foreclosure & Re-filed Cases – In high-volume foreclosure dockets, lenders frequently amend pleadings after prior dismissals. Borrowers must timely object or they will lose that procedural defense.
4. Clarification of the Tripartite Jurisdiction Scheme – Trial and appellate judges now have a clear taxonomy, reducing confusion over when a court is “powerless to act.”
5. Uniform Statewide Rule – Eliminates district split, promoting predictability and consistency in civil litigation across Florida.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: The court’s foundational authority, granted by constitution or statute, to hear a type of case (e.g., circuit courts hearing foreclosure disputes). Cannot be waived.
Personal Jurisdiction: The power of a court over a particular person or entity. A defendant can waive it by participating without timely objection.
Case (Procedural/Continuing) Jurisdiction: The court’s power to enter orders in an existing case given where that case sits procedurally. It can evaporate after certain milestones (voluntary dismissal, final judgment, pending appeal) but—as this decision confirms—can be waived.
Waiver: Intentional relinquishment—or failure to assert—a known right. Under Rule 1.140, most defenses are waived unless timely raised.

5. Conclusion

JJJTB, Inc. v. Schmidt plants a decisive flag in Florida’s jurisdictional landscape: while courts must always police their subject-matter jurisdiction, objections to procedural authority are for the parties to raise promptly or relinquish. The ruling harmonises district precedent, curbs tactical ambushes on appeal, and offers a clear doctrinal map distinguishing three kinds of jurisdiction. Litigants must now “speak now or forever hold their peace”—or, at the very least, hold their objections.