Bowers v. Parrish

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bowers v. Parrish

845 So. 2d 251, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 6534, 2003 WL 21002444

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 6, 2003

DocketNo. 1D01-3810

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 845 So. 2d 251 (Bowers v. Parrish) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bowers v. Parrish, 845 So. 2d 251, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 6534, 2003 WL 21002444 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court correctly concluded that the total amount of damages appellant claimed in good faith from appellee in his complaint for conversion and civil theft fell below the statutory minimum amount necessary to invoke its jurisdiction. See § § 26.012(2)(a) & 34.01(l)(c)4, Fla. Stat. (1999). “Separate and distinct claims, even against the same defendant, cannot be aggregated in order to meet the juris[252]*252dictional threshold.” See Grunewald v. Warren, 655 So.2d 1227, 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (citations omitted).

However, as we have held, “a better alternative to dismissal in the event that alleged damages are below the jurisdictional amount for the circuit court is a transfer of that action to the county court.” Aysisayh v. Ellis, 497 So.2d 1316, 1317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Accordingly, we reverse the order of dismissal and remand for entry of an order transferring the action to the county court pursuant to rule 1.060(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

ALLEN, C.J., WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The trial court correctly concluded that the total amount of damages appellant claimed in good faith from appellee in his complaint for conversion and civil theft fell below the statutory minimum amount necessary to invoke its jurisdiction. See § § 26.012(2)(a) & 34.01(l)(c)4, Fla. Stat. (1999). “Separate and distinct claims, even against the same defendant, cannot be aggregated in order to meet the juris[252]*252dictional threshold.” See Grunewald v. Warren, 655 So.2d 1227, 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (citations omitted).

However, as we have held, “a better alternative to dismissal in the event that alleged damages are below the jurisdictional amount for the circuit court is a transfer of that action to the county court.” Aysisayh v. Ellis, 497 So.2d 1316, 1317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Accordingly, we reverse the order of dismissal and remand for entry of an order transferring the action to the county court pursuant to rule 1.060(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

ALLEN, C.J., WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

845 So. 2d 251, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 6534, 2003 WL 21002444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowers-v-parrish-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack