PHILLIPS v. CUTLER

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 80-1308.

Attorney(S)

John T. Allen, Jr., St. Petersburg, for petitioners. Charles J. Bartlett of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm Furen, Sarasota, for respondents.

Judges

GRIMES, Judge.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Petitioners, residents of a mobile home park owned by respondents, alleged that respondents sought to remove them from the park because they refused to sign a lease containing provisions unacceptable to them. They claimed respondents were violating Chapter 83, Florida Statutes (1979), and sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent their removal. The circuit court transferred the petitioners' action to the county court, prompting the petitioners to seek a writ of certiorari to review that transfer order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the circuit court erred in transferring the petitioners' action to the county court, which allegedly lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Whether the transfer constituted a violation of the essential requirements of law.
Whether the petitioners suffered irreparable harm from the transfer such that the remedy of appeal would be inadequate.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

The circuit court's transfer of their action to the county court was contrary to the essential requirements of law.
The transfer caused irreparable harm because there is no adequate remedy by appeal from such an order.
They are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief, which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the circuit court under Florida law.

Respondents' Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Norris v. Southern Bell Telephone Telegraph Co., 324 So.2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)	Recognition that certain orders causing irreparable harm are not adequately remedied by appeal.	Supported the court’s conclusion that the transfer order caused irreparable harm and justified certiorari relief.
Easley v. Garden Sanctuary, Inc., 120 So.2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)	Established that transfer orders violating essential requirements of law warrant certiorari relief.	Reinforced the court’s decision to quash the transfer order as violative of jurisdictional rules.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory framework governing jurisdiction over equitable remedies and declaratory actions. Section 26.012(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1979), grants circuit courts exclusive jurisdiction over equity cases, and Section 86.011 vests jurisdiction over declaratory judgments in the circuit court. Although Section 83.60 allows equitable defenses in certain landlord possessory actions, no such action was pending, and equitable defenses are distinct from seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Consequently, the circuit court's transfer of the case to the county court, which lacked subject matter jurisdiction, violated the essential requirements of law. The court further concluded that this error caused irreparable harm because the petitioners lacked an adequate remedy by appeal. The court relied on precedent to justify granting certiorari relief, quashing the transfer order, and remanding the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.

Holding and Implications

The court granted the petition for writ of certiorari, quashed the circuit court’s order transferring the case to the county court, and remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.

The decision directly restores jurisdiction of the case to the circuit court, ensuring petitioners can pursue their declaratory and injunctive relief claims in the proper forum. The opinion does not establish new precedent beyond affirming established jurisdictional principles and the availability of certiorari relief for transfer orders violating essential requirements of law.

Show full summary ...

CLETUS PHILLIPS AND ELEANOR PHILLIPS, HIS WIFE, ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. SAMUEL C. CUTLER AND DORIS M. CUTLER, HIS WIFE, AND KARL E. BIGELOW D/B/A VENETIAN MOBILE HOME PARK, RESPONDENTS.

GRIMES, Judge.

Petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to review an order of the circuit court which transferred their action to the county court. They assert that the transfer was contrary to the essential requirements of law and resulted in irreparable harm for which the remedy of appeal would be inadequate. We agree and grant their petition.

Petitioners, who are residents of a mobile home park owned by respondents, alleged that respondents were seeking to remove them from the park because they refused to sign a lease which contained provisions unacceptable to them. Contending that respondents were violating Chapter 83, Florida Statutes (1979), they sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction against their removal from the park.

Declaratory and injunctive relief are classic equitable remedies, and Section 26.012(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1979), gives the circuit courts exclusive jurisdiction over all cases in equity. Furthermore, Section 86.011, Florida Statutes (1979), specifically vests jurisdiction over declaratory actions in the circuit court. While Section 83.60, Florida Statutes (1979), does permit the raising of equitable defenses to certain landlord possessory actions, there is no such action yet pending. Also, the right to raise equitable defenses is not the equivalent of the right to seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

It is clear then that the transfer of the cause by the circuit court was a transfer to a court without subject matter jurisdiction and that this violated the essential requirements of law. Moreover, the error resulted in irreparable harm to petitioners because there is not an adequate remedy by appeal from this type of order. See Norris v. Southern Bell Telephone Telegraph Co., 324 So.2d 108 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Easley v. Garden Sanctuary, Inc., 120 So.2d 59 (Fla.2d DCA 1960). Accordingly, we quash the transfer order and remand the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.

BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.