MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
v.
LOUISE DAVIS, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Miami-Dade County appealed two orders concerning a dangerous dog confiscation case: an injunction and an order voiding an ex parte confiscation order that also declared a statute unconstitutional. The appellate court quashed both orders as having been entered without jurisdiction, as the trial court had been divested of jurisdiction when the Davises filed their earlier appeal.
Both orders are quashed because they were entered while the trial court was divested of jurisdiction. A trial court loses jurisdiction upon the filing of a notice of appeal and cannot modify a judgment pending appeal absent the appellate court relinquishing jurisdiction.
“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.”
Establishes the foundational principle that trial courts lose jurisdiction once an appeal is filed and cannot modify pending judgments absent appellate court authorization.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 30, 2023, a trial court issued an ex parte final order authorizing Miami-Dade County to confiscate Louise and William Scott Davis's allegedly…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unconstitutional Delegation Of Legislative Power cases and more on FLexlaw
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).
Orders quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fonseca v. Taverna Imports, Inc., 193 So. 3d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Settles v. State, 938 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)