Fallon Rahima Jallali v. Knightsbridge Village Homeowners' Association, Inc.
152 So. 3d 808
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Homeowners’ association (appellee) sued to foreclose a lien for unpaid dues; the circuit court entered a default final judgment of foreclosure on November 21, 2012.
- Appellant (Jallali) appealed the 2012 final judgment to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- While that appeal was pending, appellant filed bankruptcy, which triggered an automatic stay; later the foreclosure case was permitted to proceed on appeal.
- In 2013, appellee moved in the circuit court to amend the 2012 final judgment (concededly under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(5)).
- The circuit court granted the motion and entered an amended final judgment on December 30, 2013, while the original judgment’s appeal remained pending in this court.
- The Fourth District quashed the amended final judgment and reinstated the 2012 final judgment, holding the trial court lacked jurisdiction to amend the judgment during the pendency of the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could enter an amended final judgment while the original judgment was on appeal | Appellee argued the trial court retained authority to amend judgment (via Rule 1.540(b)(5)) | Appellant argued the pending appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction to amend the judgment | Court held the pendency of the appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction to amend the judgment and quashed the amended final judgment |
| Whether motions under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540 may be entertained while an appeal is pending | Appellee relied on Rule 1.540 to justify relief | Appellant maintained Rule 1.540 relief cannot be entertained once appellate jurisdiction is invoked | Court held trial court cannot entertain Rule 1.540(b) motions that affect the judgment on appeal without appellate relinquishment |
| Whether any post-appeal actions that do not affect appellate subject matter are permitted | Appellee argued the amendment did not interfere with appellate review | Appellant argued the amendment directly altered the judgment under review | Court reiterated trial court may act only on matters that do not interfere with appellate court’s authority; the amendment did interfere and was impermissible |
| Proper remedy when a trial court acts during pendency of an appeal | Appellee sought to validate the amended judgment | Appellant sought quashal and reinstatement of the original judgment | Court quashed the amended judgment and reinstated the 2012 final judgment; appellate relinquishment is the proper route if trial action is necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Hofmann, 471 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (pendency of appeal divests lower court of jurisdiction over matters related to final judgment)
- Wilson Realty, Inc. v. David, 369 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (same principle on loss of trial-court jurisdiction upon appeal)
- Brown v. Brown, 931 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify or amend judgment on appeal)
- State ex rel. Schwartz v. Lantz, 440 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (trial court cannot entertain Rule 1.540(b) motions once appellate jurisdiction invoked)
- Zuckerman v. Alex Hofrichter, P.A., 630 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (trial court lacks jurisdiction to proceed on motion for relief from judgment after appeal taken)
- Flemenbaum v. Flemenbaum, 636 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (pendency of appeal divests trial court of jurisdiction to hear Rule 1.540 motion)
- Glatstein v. City of Miami, 391 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (proper procedure is to request appellate court to relinquish jurisdiction)
- Palma Sola Harbour Condo., Inc. v. Huber, 374 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (trial court retains jurisdiction only over matters that do not interfere with appellate court’s authority)
- Bailey v. Bailey, 392 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (jurisdictional question depends on whether trial-court action affects the subject matter of the appeal)
- Schultz v. Schickedanz, 884 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (trial court may award post-trial attorney’s fees while appeal pending when it does not interfere with appellate consideration)