### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JULIO PLUTT, an individual, JAZWARES DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Florida Corporation, BRIGHT PRODUCTS, INC
., a Florida Corporation

, Appellant s ,

v.

MICHE LE ROSS
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1906

[ November 8, 2017 ]

Appeal of non

- final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; John T. Luzzo , Judge; L.T. Case No. 09

- 10145

.

Geoffrey D. Ittleman of The Law Offices of Geoffrey D. Ittleman, P.A., for appellant s

.

Melissa E. Roque and Steven D. Gonzalez of Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC, for appellee.

F ORST

, J

.

Julio Plutt, Jazwares Distribution, Inc., and Bright Products, Inc. (“Appellants”) appeal the circuit court’s denial of their Florida Rule of Civil

Procedure 1.540(b) motion to vacate a final judgment awarding Appellee Michele Ross $7,092.56

. In their motion, Appellants contended that the final judgment entered by the circuit court was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in co ntroversy did not exceed $15,000. We affirm because the complaint, in good faith

, sought damages in excess of $15,000, conferr ing jurisdiction on the circuit court notwithstanding the ultimate damage award

.

Background

In 2009, Appellee filed a complaint against Appellants in Broward County circuit court. She alleged that Appellants breached a contract in which she agreed to author children’s books in exchange for a royalty or

commission on all book sales

, rang ing from 1.5 to 3.5 percent

. Appellee2 further alleged that Appellants failed to provide any of the agreed

- upon compensation despite her performance under the contract. Regarding damages, Appellee alleged: “All claims made herein are for damages in access [sic] of $15,000.00, exclu sive of attorneys’ fees, interest and costs.”

Following years o f litigation and discovery, Appellee successfully moved

for a default. Appellee then filed a motion for summary judgment. The

motion stated that the proceeds from the sa les of Appellee’s books

amoun ted to $202,644.81. Based on the formu la in the subject contract, Appellee asserted that Appellants owed her $7,092.56 “in royalties.”
However, she also claim ed to have suffered total damages of $209,737.37,

which was the sum of the royalties and the sale proceeds. The trial court entered an order granting the motion for summar y judgment and stating that Appellee was entitled to $7,092.56 in damages. T he final judgment awarded that amount, in addition to costs and pre

- judgment interest

, for

a total award of $13,695.58.

More than a year after entry of the final judgment, Appellants filed a

motion to vacate. They asserted that the circuit court lacked subjec t matter jurisdiction because Appellee stated in her summary judgment

motion that s he was due $7,092.56 in damages for unpaid royalties. Appellants argued that Appellee effectively acknowledged that the court was without jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not exceed

the $15,000 threshold needed to invoke the circuit cour t’s jurisdiction.

T he trial court entered an order denying the motion to vacate without explanation. This non

- final appeal follows. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5)

.

Analysis

We generally review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to vacate for an

abuse of discretion. Vercosa v. Fields , 174 So. 3d 550, 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)

. However, “[w] hether a judgment is void is a question of law

reviewed de novo .” Id.

A party may move at any time to v acate a final judgment as void due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Kathleen G. Kozinski, P.A . v. Phillips

, 126 So. 3d 1264, 1268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Florida circuit courts have subject matter jurisdiction over actions at law in which the matter in controversy exceeds $15,000, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney’s

fees. See § § 26.012(2)(a) and 34.01(1)(c), Fla. Stat

. (2016). “ [A] court’s subject matter jurisdiction over a case generally depends on the good

- faith allegations in the complaint as to an amount in controversy.” Bogdanoff v. Broken Sound Club, Inc. , 154 So. 3d 410, 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)

. “T he3 test in determining the jurisdiction of the court ‘ is the amount in good faith claimed or put in controversy when the action is commenced.’” Thibadeau

v. Santini Bros

., Inc. , 315 So. 2d 550, 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (quoting Castellano v. Bader Bros. Van Lines, Inc. , 208 So. 2d 842 , 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)).

Once jurisdiction is properly invoked by filing the complaint, “the circuit court retain[s] jurisdiction to enter an award, irrespective of the

amount. ” 1 Cooperativa D e Seguros Multiples De v. Cintron , 44 So. 3d 623,

624 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (Torpy, J., concurring); see also Thibadeau , 315

So. 2d at 552 ; P HILIP J. P ADOVANO

, F LORIDA C IVIL P RACTICE § 1.5 (2016 ed.) (“If the jurisdiction of the circuit court is invoked by a proper allegation, it will not be defeated on the gro und that the award of damages is less than the jurisdictional amount for filing a case in the circuit court.”)

.

In this case, Appellee asserted in her complaint that “[a] ll claims made herein are for damages in access [sic] of $15,000.00, exclusive of at torneys’ fees, interest and costs.” There is no evidence in the record that Appellee’s

claim for damages in excess of $15,000 in her complaint was not made in good faith (the lower amount sought by Appellee in her subsequent motion for summary judgment wa s calculated from sales numbers obtained only in the course of discovery ). Moreover, Appellants explicitly concede d the “good faith” issue in their reply brief. Cf. Cintron

, 44 So. 3d at 625 (Orfinger, J., dissenting) (stating that, where plaintiff knew damages were below jurisdictional threshold when filing amended complaint, the plaintiff’s claim for damages in excess of $15,000 “could not have

. . . been made in good faith”).

Conclusion

T he circuit court in this case had subject matter jurisdiction at the time it entered the final judgment because it had jurisdiction at the time Appellee filed the complaint, where s he sought in good faith

, damages in excess of $15,000. Consequently, t he subsequent motion to vacate was

without merit.

1 While this means a circuit court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for $15,000

or less (assuming a good

- faith demand in the comp laint), “notwithstanding the bona fides of the plaintiff ’ s demand at the time of institution of suit, as a matter of judicial power the county court is precluded from entering a judgment for damages in excess of its mandated jurisdiction.” White v. Marine Transp. Lines,

Inc. , 372 So. 2d 81, 84 (Fla. 1979) (emph asis added) ; accord Bogdanoff , 154 So.

3d at 411.4 Affirmed

.

W ARNER
, J ., concur s

.

G ROSS , J., concurs in result.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.