IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PINELLAS
COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPELLATE DIVISION
Appellant,
vs. Appeal No. 99-7722-88A
AMERI STARR, INC.; HARTFORD
INSURANCE CO.; PAT
GAGNON;
AND MATTHEW J. COSTELLO,
Appellees.
______________________________/
Appeal from Final Order
County Court, Pinellas County
The Honorable Henry J. Andringa
Kevin V. Brown, #050420
CI-143
Gulf Correctional
Institution
500 Ike Steele Road
Wewahitchka, FL 32465
Appellant, Pro se
Michael Miller, Esquire
500 N. Westshore
Blvd., Suite 650
Tampa, FL 33609
Attorney for the
Appellees
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Appellant’s Appeal from the Order Denying Motion for Relief from Order entered by the County Court on October 20, 1999. The Court, having reviewed the motion, the record on appeal, and being otherwise advised in the premises, affirms the ruling of the Trial Court.
The Court recounted at length the history of this cause in its order dated July 28, 1999, and will not do so again here. Moving forward, the only issue for determination is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant’s Motion for Relief from Order.
Rule 1.540 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure contemplates relief from judgments, decrees, or orders in the event of clerical mistakes or unjust rulings based upon mistakes, inadvertence, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, etc. See, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540 (a-b). However, Rule 1.540 does not contemplate relief under circumstances where the moving party has merely suffered prejudice as a result of his own action or inaction. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Gulisano, 722 So. 2d 216, 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Moreover, pro se litigants will not be held to a lesser standard than a reasonably competent attorney. See, Kohn v. City of Miami Beach, 611 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Carr v. Grace, 321 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 945 (1977).
Appellant claims a Rule 1.540(a) clerical mistake occurred that resulted in his case being assigned to the incorrect court. However, the test for determining jurisdiction of a court is the amount claimed and put into controversy in good faith. See, PTS of Gainesville, Inc. v. Olivetti Corp. of America, 334 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Given this, Appellant’s initial pleading of damages in excess of five thousand dollars shows that this cause was properly placed with the county court, which may award damages up to fifteen thousand dollars. Therefore, the county court had jurisdiction. For example, to invoke the jurisdiction of the circuit court, one must plead damages that exceed fifteen thousand dollars.
Additionally, Appellant considers the trial court’s Order Denying Motion to Transfer to be an unjust ruling based on mistake of law by the trial judge, as contemplated by Rule 1.540(b). However, as noted by this Court previously, Appellant had thirty days to seek appellate review of that order and did not do so. As a result of the Appellant’s own inaction, the court cannot now reverse that order. Moreover, in considering the lower court’s decision on the Rule 1.540 motion, Rule 1.060 permits but does not require the trial court to transfer an action. See, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.060(a) (stating that an action may be transferred). This, combined with the trial court’s concerns over the timeliness of the Motion to Transfer, allows this Court to find no abuse of discretion in the lower court’s denial of Appellant’s Motion for Relief from Order. It is, therefore,
DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida, this 12th
day of June 2000.
| _________________________________ CHARLES W. COPE Circuit Judge, Appellate Division |
Copies Furnished To:
The Honorable Henry J. Andringa
Kevin V. Brown, #050420
CI-143
Gulf Correctional
Institution
500 Ike Steele Road
Wewahitchka, FL 32465
Michael Miller, Esquire
500 N. Westshore
Blvd., Suite 650
Tampa, FL 33609
Staff Attorney, Appellate Division