MCR FUNDING v. CMG Funding Corp.
771 So. 2d 32, 2000 WL 1397260 (2000)
Rule of Law:
A trial court does not lose subject matter jurisdiction over a class of cases when parties file a voluntary dismissal under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(1)(B) that purports to retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement; rather, the court loses case jurisdiction over the specific dispute, which can be re-established by the parties' mutual consent to litigate enforcement motions within the dismissed case, precluding a later challenge to the court's power.
Facts:
- CMG Funding Corp. (CMG) was a residential mortgage lending business operating in Boca Raton, Florida.
- John Monroe, CMG's former senior vice president, left the company.
- CMG alleged that Monroe raided its office and hired away its employees to work at MCR Funding (MCR), a competing company.
- On November 4, 1998, CMG and MCR, along with individual defendants who were former CMG employees, entered into a fifteen-page confidential settlement agreement.
- The settlement agreement provided that CMG would assign its lease, security deposit, equipment leases, telephone/fax numbers, and office furniture rights for its Boca Raton business premises to MCR.
- MCR agreed to pay CMG $100,000, upon which the parties would file a joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuit.
- MCR further agreed to pay CMG an additional $150,000, plus interest, in monthly installments, commencing on December 1, 1998.
- MCR paid the initial $100,000 as required by the settlement agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- CMG Funding Corp. (CMG) sued MCR Funding and Mortgage Capital Resource Corp., and several individual former employees (collectively "MCR") alleging John Monroe, a former CMG senior vice president, raided its office and hired away its employees.
- On November 18, 1998, after MCR paid $100,000 as part of a settlement agreement, the parties filed a joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(1)(B).
- The joint stipulation for dismissal included a provision stating that the trial court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.
- On December 7, 1998, CMG filed a motion seeking court enforcement of the terms of the settlement agreement.
- MCR immediately filed its own cross-motion for enforcement of the settlement agreement.
- A hearing was held on the motions on March 18, 1999, where MCR appeared without counsel and was unable to participate.
- The trial court found that MCR had breached the settlement agreement and entered a judgment, including a damages award, in favor of CMG.
- MCR (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, challenging both the merits of the decision and, for the first time on appeal, alleging the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the enforcement motions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court lose subject matter jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement after parties have filed a joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(1)(B), which includes a provision stating the court retains jurisdiction, and both parties subsequently file motions seeking enforcement of that agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Stevenson, J.
No, a trial court does not lose subject matter jurisdiction in these circumstances. The court distinguishes between "subject matter jurisdiction"—the court's fundamental power to hear a class of cases (e.g., breach of contract)—and "case jurisdiction"—the court's power over a particular case. The trial court inherently possessed subject matter jurisdiction over the class of cases concerning breach of contract, which it never lost and which cannot be conferred or divested by party consent. While a voluntary dismissal under Rule 1.420(a)(1)(B) ordinarily terminates the court's case jurisdiction over the specific dispute, requiring a new lawsuit to enforce a settlement if there was no prior court order predicated on the settlement, the parties' actions in this case re-established the court's power to proceed. MCR explicitly consented to the court's exercise of case jurisdiction by not objecting to CMG's motion to enforce and by filing its own cross-motion for enforcement. This conduct, coupled with the joint stipulation for dismissal's explicit provision that the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, prevents MCR from challenging the court's power on appeal. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of MCR's motion for a continuance, finding no abuse of discretion given MCR's delay in securing counsel. It also affirmed the award of possession of the leased premises to CMG and the $150,000 damages award, concluding they were within the scope of the settlement and did not constitute an election of remedies. However, the court reversed the $26,000 award for personal property leases due to a lack of evidentiary support, an error conceded by CMG. The court certified conflict with the Second District's decision in 84 Lumber Co. v. Cooper regarding the nature of this jurisdictional issue.
Analysis:
This case provides a critical clarification of the distinction between "subject matter jurisdiction" and "case jurisdiction" in Florida law, particularly concerning post-dismissal enforcement of settlement agreements. It establishes that while a voluntary dismissal under Rule 1.420(a)(1)(B) typically closes a specific case, the parties can effectively re-establish a court's authority over the particular dispute if their dismissal stipulation explicitly reserves jurisdiction and they both subsequently submit to the court's power by filing enforcement motions. This approach promotes judicial efficiency by allowing settlement disputes to be resolved in the original forum without requiring new litigation, provided the parties demonstrate clear intent. The certified conflict with another district court highlights the importance of this jurisdictional nuance and suggests a need for resolution by the Florida Supreme Court.
