JOHN GROMMERS v. FABIANA CORREA PLA

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: June 14, 2023
• Docket: 23-0274
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed June 14, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0274 Lower Tribunal No. 22-1190 ________________

John Grommers, Petitioner,

vs.

Fabiana Correa Pla, et al., Respondents.

A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L. Fernandez, Judge.

Crabtree & Auslander and John G. Crabtree, Charles M. Auslander and Brian C. Tackenberg, for petitioner.

Law Offices of Geoffrey B. Marks and Geoffrey B. Marks, for respondent Fabiana Correa Pla.

Before SCALES, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, John Grommers, seeks to quash the trial court’s January 25, 2023 order entered after he voluntarily dismissed his petition seeking to

be appointed as guardian of the person in the underlying guardianship

proceeding concerning a minor ward. The order at issue reduced to writing

the trial court’s rulings on Grommers’ and the respondent’s various motions

heard at a December 14, 2022 hearing. Shortly after the hearing, but before

the trial court entered its order, Grommers voluntarily dismissed without

prejudice all petitions he filed in the guardianship case. 1 Grommers

contends that after he did so, the trial court was without authority to enter

this order. We agree and quash the order.

“As a general rule, the effect of a plaintiff’s announcement of a

voluntary dismissal is ‘immediate, final, and irreversible . . . .’” Two Islands

Dev. Corp. v. Clarke, 239 So. 3d 115, 124–25 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (quoting

Kelly v. Colston, 977 So. 2d 692, 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)). A voluntary

dismissal operates, with the exception of certain limitations not applicable

here, to terminate the trial court’s jurisdiction over the matter. See id.;

Semerena v. Aetna Health, Inc., 248 So. 3d 230, 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018);

Rabello v. Alonso, 927 So. 2d 45, 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); see also

Monteagudo v. Cimbler, 306 So. 3d 337, 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). Even

1 Guardianship proceedings remain ongoing below as to other parties. Respondent takes no position on the issue herein.

2 where a plaintiff or petitioner files a notice of voluntary dismissal after the

trial court orally announces a ruling at a hearing, the trial court acts in excess

of its jurisdiction when it subsequently enters a written order of its ruling.

Two Islands Dev. Corp., 239 So. 3d at 125; Semerena, 248 So. 3d at 231.

Thus, Grommers’ voluntary dismissal terminated his action, and the trial

court was thereafter divested of jurisdiction to “memorialize” its December

22nd rulings in the January 25th order.

Because the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in entering the January

25th order, we grant the petition for certiorari and quash the order. Geico

Gen. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 151 So. 3d 554, 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)

(“Certiorari is the appropriate remedy to quash an order issued in excess of

the lower tribunal’s jurisdiction.”); State v. Futch, 979 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2008) (granting petition for writ of certiorari and quashing order on

review because trial court had no jurisdiction to enter order); Hudson v.

Hoffman, 471 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (same); cf. Valdez v. Chief

Judge of Eleventh Jud. Cir. of Fla., 640 So. 2d 1164, 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA

1994) (“Because the petition alleges that the chief judge exceeded his

jurisdiction in promulgating the instant administrative order, certiorari is an

appropriate remedy and we have jurisdiction.”).

Petition granted; order quashed.