Gannett v. King

• Decision Date: 21 January 1959
• Docket Number: No. 717,717
• Citation: Gannett v. King, 108 So.2d 299 (Fla. App. 1959)
• Parties: Ada GANNETT, Appellant, v. William F.KING et ux., Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 299

108 So.2d 299

Ada GANNETT, Appellant, v.William F.KING et ux., Appellees.

No. 717.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 21, 1959.

Irving Hoffman and Howard M. Duncanson, Hollywood, for appellant.

William C. Mather, Hollywood, for appellees.

KANNER, Chief Judge.

Since the appeal instituted in this court by appellant emanates from the circuit court's order dismissing the second amended complaint on its merits and since it does not appear from the allegations that the trial court had jurisdiction, the opinion of this court will be confined to jurisdictional aspects of the case and will not be directed to appellant's points on the merits of the appeal.The question of jurisdiction is here raised ex mero motu.

The basic element which brought the case before the circuit court was a claim set forth by appellant as damages and expenses allegedly in excess of $500.The situation leading to the action thus instituted began with the purchase of certain lands by appellant, the result of such transaction being a statutory warranty deed to her from the sellers-appellees.The deed warranted the title in full and was not subject to restrictions or encumbrances of record.The complaint of appellant charged breach of certain warranties contained in the deed and set forth this list of damages and expenses which resulted:

"Filing Fee                      $12.50
                 Publication fee                  18.37
                 Guardian ad litem & Attorney     25.00
                   ad litem fee
                 Release of reverter             150.00
                 Certified copy decree              .50
                 Recording release of reverter     1.50
                 Attorneys' fees                 250.00
                                                --------
                 Total                          $457.87"
                

Appellant further claimed interest from the date of demand alleged to have been made by her on August 12, 1957, the demand having been ignored by appellees.In order to make up the required jurisdictional amount, appellant alleged that she'has been forced to employ the undersigned attorneys, for which she has obligated herself to pay a reasonable fee for services rendered in and about the prosecution of this suit, which reasonable fee will exceed the sum of $42.13, making her entire damages in excess of $500.00.'Thus the attorney's fee claimed would raise the total from an amount less than $500, a sum within the county court's jurisdictional scope, to an amount in excess of $500, which would elevate it to the circuit court's jurisdiction.

The action here concerned was brought in the circuit court of Broward County.There exists in that county a county court, originally established by chapter 6983 of the Laws of Florida, for 1915.Under the Constitution of the State of Florida, Article V, section 6(c), F.S.A., the jurisdiction of the circuit courts, as it may be applicable to the present case, extends to 'all cases at law not cognizable by subordinate courts' and 'in all actions involving the titles or boundaries of real estate.'Under Article V, section 8, the jurisdiction of county courts, in counties where they exist, includes 'all cases at law in which the demand or value of the property involved shall not exceed five hundred dollars.'

To being with, it must be emphasized that the claim is not one involving the title to land so as to fall automatically within the jurisdiction of the circuit court under the constitutional provision.In Barrs v. State, 1928, 95 Fla. 75, 116 So. 28, 29, the Supreme Court said:

'A suit is one 'involving the title to real estate' only where the necessary result of the decree or judgment is that one party gains or the other loses an interest in the real estate, or where the title is so put in issue by the pleadings that the decision of the case necessarily involves the judicial determination of such rights.'

The complaint here does not assert a claim for the adjudication of the rights of parties to the real estate itself.Even though the condition of the title of record affects the right of recovery and, as a consequence, upon such condition of title would depend necessary proof incident to a proper judgment, neither the record of the title nor its status would be involved or affected by the result of the litigation.Rather, the action is upon an alleged breach of warranties in a deed, the title to the land being only incidental to the asserted claim.Barrs v. State, supra;see alsoAnnotation, 115 A.L.R. at page 535.

Since the claim was not one automatically within the jurisdiction of the circuit court, it must now be determined whether the amount in controversy was such as to exceed the jurisdictional scope of the county court and thus fall within that of the circuit court.

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief must contain allegations of fact sufficient to show the jurisdiction of the court.Rule 1.8(b),Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A.In the final analysis, where the jurisdiction depends upon the amount involved in a case, the answer cannot rest upon the amount claimed or actually recoverable, but the question must be resolved by the amount claimed in good faith and put in controversy.Richter Jewelry Co. v. Harrison, 1941, 147 Fla. 732, 3 So.2d 387.Regardless of what statement of damages is made in the ad damnum clause of a complaint, such statement does not determine the jurisdiction...