COUNTY COLLECTION SERVICES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
LEONARD ALLEN, APPELLEE
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.
County Collection Services sued Leonard Allen to foreclose on a lien for code violations. The trial court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding the amount in controversy fell within county court jurisdiction limits. The appellate court reversed, holding that the lien amount of $9,900 as of the recording date exceeded the county court's jurisdictional limit of $5,000.
The circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction because the cause of action accrued when the lien was recorded on March 12, 1990, at which time the amount in controversy ($9,900) exceeded the $5,000 county court jurisdictional limit, placing it within circuit court jurisdiction.
[1] A circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction over a cause of action to foreclose on a lien exceeding $5,000.
[2] A cause of action accrues when the last element necessary to constitute the cause of action occurs.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A cause of action accrues when the last element necessary to constitute the cause of action occurs.”
Establishes the test for determining when a cause of action accrues for jurisdictional purposes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAllen violated Palm Beach County Zoning Code provisions in September 1989 and was ordered to comply within 30 days or face $75-per-day fines. He faile…
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 Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant sued to foreclose on a lien on property owned by appellee. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding an insufficient amount in controversy. We reverse.
The underlying facts are that appellee was determined in September 1989 to have violated certain provisions of the Palm Beach County Zoning Code. He was ordered to comply with the code within 30 days or be fined $75 per day. He failed to comply, and a claim of lien for $9,900 was recorded on March 12, 1990. Appellant filed suit to foreclose on it. A default was entered against appellee.
After initially granting appellant’s amended motion for summary judgment, the trial court sua sponte vacated that order. It found that the amount in controversy was within the jurisdictional limit of the county court, not the circuit court, and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice for it to be filed in county court.
Section 34.01(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1993), provides in pertinent part that county courts have jurisdiction over a cause of action accruing before July 1,1990, if the amount in controversy does not exceed $5,000. A cause of action accrues when the last element necessary to constitute the cause of action occurs. Heckman v. City of Oakland Park, 644 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). The instant cause of action was to foreclose on a lien that was $9,900 as of March 12, 1990, which at that time was well above the jurisdictional limit of the county courts. Therefore it was error for the circuit court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
We note further that because section 162.09(3), Florida Statutes (1993), provides for the continued accrual of the fine imposed on appellee until he comes into compliance or until a judgment is rendered, appellant should record a certified copy of an updated order imposing the current amount of the fine. That order shall constitute a lien, and the trial court can then enter judgment to foreclose on it. Appellant, as the prevailing party, will be entitled to recover all costs, including a reasonable attorney’s fee. § 162.10, Fla.Stat. (1993).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HERSEY, GUNTHER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Riviera Beach v. Reed, 987 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…of mortgages on real property as early as 1995, when it acquired the liens. Therefore, the trial court did not err in ruling that the recording of the liens triggered the five-year statute of limitations. Cf. County Collection Servs., Inc. v. Allen, 650 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (holding that code enforcement hens had accrued on the date they were recorded). The City acquired its liens in 1995 and recorded them in 1995 and 1996. Based on the recording dates of the liens, the limitations period ended in 2…
-
Margolis v. Andromides, 732 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…use of action accrues. See, e.g., Hawkins v. Barnes, 661 So. 2d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). A cause of action “accrues” when the last element necessary to constitute the cause of action occurs. See, e.g., County Collection Servs., Inc. v. Allen, 650 So. 2d 650, 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); see also § 95.031(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). It is Margolis’ position that, here, the final element of the cause of action, harm, did not occur until October of 1993, when the arbitration proceedings with the lessors concluded…
Authorities Cited
- Heckman v. City OF Oakland Park, 644 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)