County Civil Court: CIVIL
PROCEDURE – jurisdiction - common-law certiorari review is proper to review
order denying transfer to circuit court – trial court departed from the
essential requirements of law in denying plaintiff’s motion to transfer action
to circuit court based on the trial court’s own determination of what the
plaintiff may be able to recover - order
reversed. Townsend v. Asset Acceptance Corp., Appeal No. 05-0102AP-88B (
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND
APPELLATE DIVISION
KIMBERLY JOYCE TOWNSEND,
Appellant,
vs.
Appeal No.05-0102AP-88B
UCN522005AP000102XXXXCV
ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION,
Appellee.
____________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the Petition
for Writ of Certiorari, the Response, and the Reply. Upon consideration of the same, the record
and being otherwise fully advised, the Court finds that the Petition must be
granted as set forth below.
This is the second time this matter is before the Court on appeal. The underlying facts are that Kimberly Joyce
Townsend filed suit against Asset Acceptance Corp., on August 19, 2002,
alleging that Asset attempted to collect a debt in violation of the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA), Florida Statutes, section
559.92. The trial court granted Asset’s
Motion to Dismiss. In an Order and
Opinion, entered August 6, 2004, Appeal No. 03-1921CI-88A, this Court, albeit a
different panel, reversed that decision finding that the trial court erred in
going outside the four corners of the complaint in considering whether to
dismiss the statement of claim. The
Order and Opinion also found that Townsend had sufficiently pled a FCCPA cause
of action and that Townsend sought all damages that were statutorily
available. The Second District Court of
Appeal affirmed this decision in Townsend v. Asset Acceptance Corp., 899 So.2d
507 (
On remand, Townsend filed a Renewed
Motion to Transfer Jurisdiction seeking to transfer the case from the Small
Claims Division to the Circuit Civil Division based on Townsend’s belief that
damages, if awarded, would exceed the County Court’s jurisdictional limit of $
15,000.00. The trial court denied the
Motion upon which Townsend filed her petition seeking common-law certiorari
review.
Before this Court, Townsend argues that the trial court departed from the
essential requirements of law in failing to transfer the case to Circuit Court. In conducting common-law certiorari
review, the Court must find that Townsend has demonstrated that the trial court
violated a clearly established principle of law for which there is no adequate
remedy on appeal. See Combs v.
State, 436 So.2d 93, 96 (
“Jurisdiction
of the circuit court depends on the good faith allegations of the plaintiffs,
not on the trial court’s preliminary determination of the amount which they may
actually recover.” See Grunewald
v. Warren, 655 So.2d 1227, 1229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); see also Soler,
625 So.2d at 906; Rocco v. Coffey, 163 So.2d 21, 23 (Fla. 2d DCA
1964). In applying this rule, it does
not matter that the plaintiff ultimately recovers less than the jurisdictional
limit of the Circuit Court. See A.W.
Neumann v. R.D. Brigman, 475 So.2d 1247, 1249 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). As expressed in A.W. Neumann, if there
is an ambiguity, it should be resolved in favor of the movant. Further, as applicable in this case, the
availability of a punitive damages claim can satisfy the jurisdictional
limits. See
The Court
finds that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in
failing to transfer the case to Circuit Court based on the trial court’s own
determination of what Townsend may be able to recover. There is nothing in the record to show that
Townsend’s allegations were not made in good faith or that she was forum
shopping, as argued by Asset during the hearing.[1] Additionally, and unique to this case, is the
application of section 559.77(2) that plainly states that the trial court may,
in its discretion, award punitive damages and provide other equitable
relief. It’s impossible for the trial
court to determine whether a Circuit Court judge, after a trial on the merits,
would impose such damages in his or her discretion.
Also
notable is this Court’s previous finding that Townsend had sufficiently pled
all damages statutorily available to her, a decision that was affirmed by the
Second District Court of Appeal. The
Second District’s decision to not address the specific claim of emotional
distress damages does not change this outcome.
The Court does find that the language in the first decision concerning
emotional distress damages is dicta and not the law of the case. Lastly, the Court finds that the matter can
be returned to County Court if it is later determined that the jurisdictional
amount is, without dispute, less than
$ 15,000.00. See Soler, supra.
ORDERED
AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for
Writ of Certiorari is granted and the Order Denying Transfer is quashed.
DONE AND ORDERED in
Chambers, at
______________________________
DAVID
A. DEMERS
Circuit Judge, Appellate
Division
_____________________________ _____________________________
PETER RAMSBERGER ANTHONY
RONDOLINO
Circuit Judge, Appellate
Division Circuit
Judge, Appellate Division
Copies furnished to:
Judge Walt Fullerton
Mark T. Tischhauser, Esquire
Dale T. Golden, Esquire
Barbara Sinsley, Esquire