IRENE J. PRIDGEN AND KAREY JOHNSON, SR.
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A.
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.
When an appeal is pending, the trial court is divested of jurisdiction to enter a final order disposing of the cause, and any final order entered without leave of court is void.
[1] When an appeal from a nonfinal order is pending, the trial court's lack of jurisdiction to enter a final order is not cured by the fact that the appealed nonfinal order w…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“It has long been held that where an appeal is duly taken, . . . jurisdiction of the cause is transferred to the appellate court, thereby depriving the trial court of the power to [f]inally dispose of the cause by dismissal or otherwise.”
Citing Benjamin v. Fore and De La Portilla v. De La Portilla to establish the controlling principle that appellate jurisdiction divests the trial court of authority to finally dispose of a case.
Appellants Pridgen and Johnson appealed a nonfinal order in a foreclosure case. While that appeal was pending, the trial court entered a final judgmen…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.130(F) cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
IRENE JOHNSON PRIDGEN and KAREY JOHNSON, SR.,
Appellants,
v.
WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, as owner trustee of the Residential Credit Opportunities Trust VII-A, Appellee.
No. 2D22-2588
December 27, 2023
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; George M. Jirotka, Judge. Irene Johnson Pridgen, pro se.
Karey Johnson, Sr., pro se.
Melisa Manganelli of Law Offices of Mandel, Manganelli & Leider, P.A., Boca Raton, for Appellee. LABRIT, Judge.
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(f) states that "during the pendency of a review of a nonfinal order . . . the lower tribunal may not render a final order disposing of the cause pending such review absent leave of the court." Here, without leave of court, the trial court entered a final judgment of foreclosure while a prior appeal in the case was pending. The appellants argue that this was error, and we agree. "It has long been held that where an appeal is duly taken, . . . jurisdiction of the cause is transferred to the appellate court, thereby depriving the trial court of the power to [f]inally dispose of the cause by dismissal or otherwise." Benjamin v. Fore, 995 So. 2d 543, 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (alteration in original) (quoting De La Portilla v. De La Portilla, 304 So. 2d 116, 118 (Fla. 1974)); see also Gibson v. Progress Bank of Fla., 54 So. 3d 1058, 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Kessler v. City of Naples, 779 So. 2d 378, 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). According to the appellee, the trial court retained this power because the prior appeal sought review of a nonappealable nonfinal order. It's true that the nonfinal order was not appealable. But this does not mean that we lacked jurisdiction to make that determination in the prior appeal, nor does it mean that the trial court retained jurisdiction to finally dispose of the case while the appeal was pending. See Katz v. NME Hosps., Inc., 791 So. 2d 1127, 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Carter v. Dorman, 385 So. 2d 740, 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Because an appeal was pending when the trial court entered final judgment, the judgment is void. See Benjamin, 995 So. 2d at 544. We therefore reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to vacate the final judgment.1 Reversed and remanded.
KELLY and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- DE LA Portilla v. DE LA Portilla, 304 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1974)
- Carter v. Dorman, 385 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Katz v. NME Hosps., Inc., 791 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Kessler v. City OF Naples, 779 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Benjamin v. Fore, 995 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Gibson v. Progress Bank OF Fla., 54 So. 3d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)