Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed December 29, 2021.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-2368
Lower Tribunal No. 21-19299
________________
Brian A. Dupree,
Petitioner,
vs.
Shekina Dellmar a/k/a Shekina Dellmar-Donaldson,
Respondent.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Mandamus.
Brian A. Dupree, in proper person.
No appearance, for respondent.
Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and HENDON, JJ.
HENDON, J.
Brian A. Dupree (“Dupree”) petitions for a writ of mandamus1 directing
the Miami-Dade Circuit Court to void, in its entirety, an April 8, 2021 Miami-
Dade County Court order. We grant the petition for mandamus.
Dupree entered into a lease agreement with Shekina Dellmar a/k/a
Shekina Dellmar-Donaldson (“Dellmar”). The lease agreement contained an
option to purchase the leased property. At some point, Dupree and Dellmar
agreed to cancel the purchase option and continue the lease. Dupree went
forward with the intent to purchase the property upon expiration of the lease,
to the point where both parties entered into a contract for the sale and
purchase of the property. Subsequently, Dellmar allegedly failed to honor the
contract for sale and purchase and terminated the lease. Dellmar filed an
eviction action against Dupree in Miami-Dade County Court, demanding past
due rent in the amount of $1,375 and possession of the subject property.
Dupree moved to dismiss the County Court action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, asserting that he had a beneficial interest in the property
1“Mandamus will lie to compel performance of a clear legal duty.” Sandegren
v. State ex rel. Sarasota Cnty. Pub. Hosp. Bd.,
397 So. 2d 657 (Fla.1981).
The party seeking the writ must have a clear legal right to compel
performance of the act. Jackson v. State,
802 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA
2002). The petitioner must have no other adequate, complete, or specific
remedy. City of Coral Gables v. State ex rel. Worley,
44 So. 2d 298 (Fla.
1950).
2
by virtue of the contract for sale and purchase; the action was one for
ejectment, rather than eviction, which was in the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Circuit Court; and the sale contract was for an amount over the jurisdictional
limit of the County Court.
On April 8, 2021, the County Court entered an order denying Dupree’s
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and granting
Dellmar’s motion to strike Dupree’s notice of equitable beneficial interest in
the property. The County Court additionally ruled on the validity of the lease
agreement, voided the purchase and sales contract, ruled that Dupree’s and
Dellmar’s relationship was one of landlord and tenant, and ordered Dupree
to pay outstanding rent into the court registry. Dupree filed a petition for writ
of prohibition in this Court.
This Court granted Dupree’s motion for writ of prohibition, but withheld
issuance of the writ to permit transfer of the matter to the Circuit Court. This
Court held:
The county court, therefore, erred in adjudicating any claim
regarding Dupree's interest in the property and in denying the
motion to dismiss [for] lack of subject matter jurisdiction. . . .
Accordingly, the county court exceeded its jurisdiction in
adjudicating issues related to Dupree's claims of an equitable
interest in real property and in continuing to exercise jurisdiction
where none exists.
3
Dupree v. Dellmar,
323 So. 3d 342, 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (emphasis
added) (citations omitted).
Despite this Court’s determination that the County Court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction over the case, the Circuit Court on remand vacated only
those parts of the April 8, 2021 order denying Dupree’s motion challenging
subject matter jurisdiction, striking his notice of assertion of equitable
beneficial interest, and ruling on the status of the purchase and sales
contract. The Circuit Court denied Dupree’s motion to vacate the order in its
entirety, upheld the remaining provisions of the County Court order, and
reserved jurisdiction to rule on the issue of the funds Dupree had deposited
into the court registry. We find this to be error.
As we indicated in our prior opinion, the County Court erred by
“adjudicating any claim regarding Dupree's interest in the property and in
denying the motion to dismiss [for] lack of subject matter jurisdiction,” and “in
continuing to exercise jurisdiction where none exists.” Dupree, 323 So. 3d
at 344 (emphasis added). Because the County Court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over any aspect of the case, we grant the petition for mandamus
and remand to the Circuit Court to vacate, in its entirety, the County Court’s
April 8, 2021 order, and to determine what funds in the court registry remain
4
that were deposited by Dupree as a result of the void County Court order
and to return those funds to him forthwith.
Petition granted; remanded with instructions.
5
