Miami-Dade County v. Louise Davis

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: July 24, 2024
• Docket: 2023-1304
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed July 24, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

Nos. 3D23-1287 & 3D23-1304 Lower Tribunal No. 23-6429 CC ________________

Miami-Dade County, Appellant,

vs.

Louise Davis, et al., Appellees.

Appeals from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Diana Gonzalez-Whyte, Judge.

Geraldine Bonzon-Keenan, Miami-Dade County Attorney, and Sabrina Levin and Christopher J. Wahl, Assistant County Attorneys, for appellant.

L. Turner Law, P.A., and Lauren N. Peffer (Boca Raton), for appellees.

Before SCALES, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. In this consolidated case, Miami-Dade County appeals both (i) a July

15, 2023 injunction order (case number 3D23-1287), and (ii) a July 18, 2023

order that voided a March 30, 2023 ex parte final order that authorized the

County to confiscate appellees Louise and William Scott Davis’s allegedly

dangerous dog (case number 3D23-1304). The July 18th order also found

section 767.12 of the Florida Statutes to be “an unconstitutional delegation

of power.” We consolidated the two appeals.

Because both challenged orders were entered after the Davises

appealed the March 30th ex parte final order (case number 3D23-0575), but

before the Davises voluntarily dismissed that appeal in October 2023, both

of the challenged orders were rendered while the trial court was divested of

jurisdiction. Fonseca v. Taverna Imps., Inc., 193 So. 3d 92, 94 (Fla. 3d DCA

2016) (“It is well settled that . . . a trial court is divested of jurisdiction upon

the filing of a notice of appeal. Accordingly, a trial court is without jurisdiction

to modify a judgment, while that judgment is pending on appeal, in the

absence of the appellate court relinquishing jurisdiction to the trial court for

that purpose.”) (citations omitted).

Therefore, without reaching the merits, we quash both orders as

having been entered while the trial court was without jurisdiction over the

case. See Bemben v. Chock, 938 So. 2d 565, 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

2 Orders quashed.