WM Specialty Mortgage, LLC v. Salomon

District Court of Appeal of Florida

WM Specialty Mortgage, LLC v. Salomon

889 So. 2d 922, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 19117, 2004 WL 2896473

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 15, 2004

DocketNo. 4D04-3014

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 889 So. 2d 922 (WM Specialty Mortgage, LLC v. Salomon) 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

WM Specialty Mortgage, LLC v. Salomon, 889 So. 2d 922, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 19117, 2004 WL 2896473 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

GROSS, J.

By its petition for writ of certiorari, WM Specialty Mortgage, LLC seeks review of a non-final order compelling discovery and imposing sanctions. We grant the petition.

Originally, WM filed a complaint to foreclose a mortgage. The trial court dismissed the complaint on July 23, 2003. On August 1, 2003, the defendant filed counterclaims. It is for these counterclaims that the defendant has sought discovery.

Subject to limited exceptions which do not apply here, “ ‘an order dismissing an action with prejudice divests the trial court of jurisdiction to preside over the parties and their dispute.’ ” Eye & Ear Sales & Serv. Co. v. Lamelo, 636 So.2d 791, 792 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (quoting Buonopane v. Ricci, 603 So.2d 713, 714 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)). Because the final order of dismissal carried “all the parties and the entire action out of court,” the trial court had “no jurisdiction to grant relief to a defendant who had not made a plea for affirmative relief’ prior to the dismissal. Osborne v. Shell Oil Co., 104 So.2d 670, 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958); Royal Bahamian Ass’n v. Morgan, 338 So.2d 876, 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The counterclaim filed after the final dismissal was a nullity.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and we quash the June 30, 2004 [923]*923order of the trial court compelling discovery and imposing sanctions.

GUNTHER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

GROSS, J.

By its petition for writ of certiorari, WM Specialty Mortgage, LLC seeks review of a non-final order compelling discovery and imposing sanctions. We grant the petition.

Originally, WM filed a complaint to foreclose a mortgage. The trial court dismissed the complaint on July 23, 2003. On August 1, 2003, the defendant filed counterclaims. It is for these counterclaims that the defendant has sought discovery.

Subject to limited exceptions which do not apply here, “ ‘an order dismissing an action with prejudice divests the trial court of jurisdiction to preside over the parties and their dispute.’ ” Eye & Ear Sales & Serv. Co. v. Lamelo, 636 So.2d 791, 792 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (quoting Buonopane v. Ricci, 603 So.2d 713, 714 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)). Because the final order of dismissal carried “all the parties and the entire action out of court,” the trial court had “no jurisdiction to grant relief to a defendant who had not made a plea for affirmative relief’ prior to the dismissal. Osborne v. Shell Oil Co., 104 So.2d 670, 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958); Royal Bahamian Ass’n v. Morgan, 338 So.2d 876, 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The counterclaim filed after the final dismissal was a nullity.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and we quash the June 30, 2004 [923]*923order of the trial court compelling discovery and imposing sanctions.

GUNTHER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

889 So. 2d 922, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 19117, 2004 WL 2896473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wm-specialty-mortgage-llc-v-salomon-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack