- 4 -
opinion) to divest Judge Harris of jurisdiction to issue the
foreclosure order.4
The Volusia County court dismissed petitioner’s action with
prejudice. The district court of appeal affirmed the dismissal.
See Johnson v. Harris, 645 So. 2d 96 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994).
In affirming the dismissal, the court of appeal stated that
“Judge Harris still had subject matter jurisdiction in the case
even while the nonfinal order was on appeal.” Id. at 98.
Not satisfied with the result in Johnson v. Harris, supra,
petitioner filed a petition for a writ of prohibition. The court
of appeal denied the petition. See Johnson v. Circuit Court, 686
So. 2d 723 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997). In doing so, the court of
appeal stated, in part, as follows:
Since 1988, the petitioner has argued that the
[foreclosure] judgment was entered at a time when the
trial court did not have jurisdiction. This is at
least the fifth time that he has made this same
argument to this same court. * * * Under Florida Rule
of Appellate Procedure 9.130(f), trial courts are
divested of jurisdiction only to the extent that their
actions are under review by an appellate court, and the
lower court has jurisdiction to proceed with matters
not before the appellate court. * * * [T]his court has
already determined that the trial court had
jurisdiction to enter the [foreclosure] order. Johnson
v. Harris, 645 So.2d 96 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). We will
not revisit this issue again.1
____________
1 The issue was previously argued in this court in
Johnson v. Lomas & Nettleton Co., No. 89-1136, 557
So.2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Johnson v. Harris, No.
4 The nonfinal order was an order dismissing petitioner’s
mother as a party to the foreclosure proceeding.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011