holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction .to entertain a “motion for clarification” on the issue of liability for condominium fees and assessments that was filed three months after entry of judgment
How later courts described this case
- holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction .to entertain a “motion for clarification” on the issue of liability for condominium fees and assessments that was filed three months after entry of judgment
- explaining “case jurisdiction” and citing cases establishing that under precedent from this Court, lack of case jurisdiction cannot be waived
- "Subject matter jurisdiction is a court's constitutional or statutory power 'to deal with a class of cases to which a particular case belongs' " (quoting Paulucci v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 842 So. 2d 797 , 801 n. 3 (Fla. 2003)); "There is no doubt that a circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction over the type of foreclosure action in this case." (emphasis added) (citations omitted)
- discussing “case jurisdiction” or “procedural jurisdiction” to enter subsequent orders on the merits after previous entry of final judgment
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from an order declaring that Appellant is liable to the Marina San Pablo Master Association for certain fees and assessments. The trial court entered this order in the context of a foreclosure case, upon a motion for clarification filed more than three months after entry of the final judgment. Because the period for rehearing or clarification had passed and the trial court was not ruling on a motion filed under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order at issue. See Pruitt v. Brock, 437 So.2d 768, 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (quoting St. Cloud Utilities v. Moore, 410 So.2d 973 , 974 n. 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)). Accordingly, we QUASH the order on appeal, leaving the final judgment of foreclosure undisturbed.