Court Opinion

ID: 9903163
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 15:30:31.302963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:07.041465
License: Public Domain

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                      FIFTH DISTRICT

                                      NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
                                      FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
                                      DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

ALLISON BABCOCK,

             Appellant,

v.                                         Case No. 5D21-2570
                                           LT Case No. 2021-CC-910

GOLDEN ACRES SOUTH, LLC,

             Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed May 19, 2023

Appeal from the County Court
for Marion County,
Robert Landt, Judge.

Allison Babcock, Morriston, pro se.

Thomas L. Hunker and Sarah Hafeez,
of Hunker Appeals, Fort Lauderdale,
for Appellee.

WALLIS, J.

      Allison Babcock (“Appellant”) appeals the Final Judgment for

Possession entered in favor of Golden Acres South, LLC (“Golden Acres”).
She argues that the county court erred by denying her motion to dismiss

because the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this action. We

agree and reverse.

      In July 2021, Golden Acres filed its Amended Complaint for Unlawful

Detainer in the county court for Marion County, seeking to recover real

property from Appellant. Appellant moved to dismiss the Amended

Complaint, alleging that the county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction

over this action.    She claimed that she had both an equitable and a

constructive interest in the property because she had made a $65,000

deposit to purchase the property and she had made improvements to the

property. In response to the Motion to Dismiss, Golden Acres denied that

Appellant had any equitable interest in the property. The trial court ultimately

denied the Motion to Dismiss without explanation.

      Following that ruling, Appellant filed a Corrected Answer to the

Amended Complaint repeating her allegation that she had an equitable

interest in the property and that the circuit court had exclusive jurisdiction

over this matter. Thereafter, Golden Acres filed a Motion for Final Judgment,

requesting that the trial court enter a Final Judgment in its favor and issue a

writ of possession. Following the hearing on Golden Acres’s Motion for Final

Judgment, the trial court found that Appellant did not have an equitable

                                       2
interest in the property.    The trial court subsequently entered a Final

Judgment in favor of Golden Acres and issued a writ of possession.

      Circuit courts have exclusive jurisdiction to hear ejectment actions,

which provide a statutory cause of action to a party with a superior right to

possession of property. § 26.012(2)(f), Fla. Stat. (2021); see also Pro-Art

Dental Lab, Inc. v. V-Strategic Grp., LLC, 986 So. 2d 1244, 1251 (Fla. 2008)

(explaining that ejectment actions are subject to the exclusive original

jurisdiction of Florida’s circuit courts). When a party claims an equitable

interest in property, the matter sounds in ejectment, not unlawful detainer or

eviction. See Thompson v. Thompson, 342 So. 3d 818, 820 (Fla. 3d DCA

2022) (explaining that, even though suit was filed as an unlawful detainer

action, when defendants answered that one of them had an equitable

ownership interest in the property, the matter sounded in ejectment); Ward

v. Est. of Ward, 1 So. 3d 238, 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“In their answer to

the complaint for eviction filed in the county court in this case, petitioners

asserted a claim to an equitable interest in the property they inhabited, which

should have been resolved by the circuit court [as an ejectment action].”);

Toledo v. Escamilla, 962 So. 2d 1028, 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“We also

find that when Ms. Toledo asserted in her answer that she was not a tenant

and that she had an equitable interest in the property, ejectment, not eviction,

                                       3
was the proper remedy, and the matter should have been transferred to the

circuit court.”).

      When Appellant asserted an equitable interest in the property,

ejectment became the proper cause of action because the trial court had to

consider her equitable claims. Therefore, the trial court erred in ruling on

this matter because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to do so.             See

Thompson, 342 So. 3d at 820; Ward, 1 So. 3d at 239; Toledo, 962 So. 2d at

1030; see also Dupree v. Dellmar, 323 So. 3d 342, 343–44 (Fla. 3d DCA

2021) (granting petition for writ of prohibition where appellant correctly

argued that county court exceeded its authority in adjudicating issues

pertaining to his equitable interest in real property when his claim of an

equitable interest in the property triggered the circuit court’s exclusive

jurisdiction). Accordingly, we reverse the Final Judgment and remand with

instructions for the county court to transfer this case to the circuit court.

      REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

EISNAUGLE and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

                                        4