ALIZA URBACH v. IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF J.R.U. ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •       Third District Court of Appeal
    State of Florida
    Opinion filed July 22, 2021.
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    ________________
    No. 3D21-1395
    Lower Tribunal No. 21-2441
    ________________
    Aliza Urbach,
    Appellant,
    vs.
    In re: Guardianship of J.R.U.,
    Appellee.
    An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Rosa C.
    Figarola, Judge.
    Steven K. Schwartz, P.A., and Steven K. Schwartz, for appellant.
    No Appearance, for appellee.
    Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and SCALES, and MILLER, JJ.
    FERNANDEZ, C.J.
    Aliza Urbach appeals the trial court’s order dismissing with prejudice
    the petition for guardianship of a minor for improper venue. The presiding
    judge from the Probate Division reasoned that the proper venue is instead
    the Family Division1. Because the trial judge erred in dismissing the petition
    instead of transferring it to the appropriate division, we reverse and remand
    with instructions to reinstate the petition and leave the issue of transfer to the
    discretion of the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit2. See Burnett v.
    Starwood Hotels & Resorts Mgmt. Co., Inc., 
    251 So. 3d 223
    , 226 (Fla. 3d
    DCA 2018) (“Filing in the wrong division is not a jurisdictional defect; it is a
    purely administrative one.”); Weiss v. Courshon, 
    618 So. 2d 255
    , 256, n.1
    (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (“The remedy for filing in the wrong division is transfer to
    the correct division, rather than dismissal.”); Maugeri v. Plourde, 
    396 So. 2d 1215
    , 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (“[E]very judge of the circuit court possesses
    the full jurisdiction of that court in his of [sic] her circuit and that the various
    divisions of that court operate in multi-judge circuits for the convenience of
    the litigants and for the efficiency of the administration of the circuits’ judicial
    business.”); In re Guardianship of Bentley, 
    342 So. 2d 1045
    , 1047 (Fla. 4th
    DCA 1977) (“[W]e reverse the order appealed from to the extent that it holds
    1 We recognize that this case is not about venue, rather, it is about filing a
    cause of action in the wrong division of the same circuit court.
    2 See Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.215(b)(4).
    2
    the Probate Division has no jurisdiction to entertain the issue of custody. We
    remand the cause . . . and, if necessary, the Chief Judge of the Circuit can
    designate which division of the court shall try the issue.”).
    Reversed and remanded with instructions.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-1395

Filed Date: 7/22/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/22/2021