7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 686a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Jurisdiction — Plaintiff lacked standing to bring cause of action for payment of PIP benefits as assignee of insured, given lack of evidence supporting existence of assignment of benefits from insured to plaintiff at time lawsuit was filed — As such, court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain claim and must dismiss action — No merit to argument that insurer waived issue of standing because it was not plead as affirmative defense — Defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time — Legal conclusion arises from stipulation of parties to limit issues to how much, if any, interest is owed by insurer and, as such, plaintiff may not rely on stipulation to bind or circumscribe court in its determination of standing — No merit to argument that Final Judgment and Dismissal with Prejudice of the appeal put an end to issue of assignment and standing — When a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, all judgments and orders entered in action are void
Affirmed at 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 605a
MEDICAL REHAB AND THERAPY CENTER, d/b/a PAIN CORRECTIVE CENTER OF BRANDON, INC. (As assignee of Shannon Patterson), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No. 98-6419 SC, Division H. July 28, 2000. Frank A. Gomez, Judge. Counsel: Timothy A. Patrick, Tampa, for Plaintiff. Karen A. Barnett, Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEPENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Judgment Or, in the Alternative, Motion for Reconsideration Or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgement, Or, in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss filed on May 18, 2000. The Court, after considering the Motion, responsive memorandum, argument of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds and rules as follows:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Based on the lack of evidence supporting the existence of an assignment of benefits from the insured to the Plaintiff at the time this suit was filed, Plaintiff lacked standing to proceed. As such, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss this cause. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is therefore Granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Shannon Patterson entered into a contract of insurance with State Farm and was insured under the subject policy.
2. Plaintiff, Medical Rehab, brought this cause of action as assignee of Shannon Patterson, seeking payment of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits relating to injuries suffered by Ms. Patterson as a result of an automobile accident.
3. Upon hearing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on or about August 25,1998, both parties stipulated to limiting the issue to how much, if any, interest is owed by the Defendant.
4. On December 2, 1999, the Court entered Final Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and certified a question regarding the accrual of interest as one of great public importance.
5. The Second District Court of Appeals declined jurisdiction in the appeal and transferred it to Circuit Court. Appellant/Defendant subsequently dismissed its appeal with prejudice.
6. Until filing of the motion at issue, Defendant never raised the issue of standing and never challenged the alleged assignment.
7. Defendant now argues post judgment that Shannon Patterson did not assign her rights to the Plaintiff in order for the Plaintiff to have standing to bring this suit. As a result, Defendant argues that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction and should dismiss this action.
8. Plaintiff argues that Defendant has irrevocably waived the issue of standing because it was not plead as an affirmative defense. Plaintiff further argues that Defendant cannot now raise the issue because the stipulation limiting the issues cannot be rechallenged. Finally, Plaintiff argues that the Final Judgment and Dismissal with Prejudice of the appeal puts an end to the issue of assignment and standing.
LAW
1. The defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. Further, jurisdiction of a tribunal’s subject matter cannot be conferred by consent, failure to object, or waiver. Marion Correctional Institution v. Kriegel, 522 So.2d 45 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) rev. denied 531 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 1988) citing Wilds v. Permenter, 228 So.2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). Therefore, Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant’s failure to raise standing as an affirmative defense is without merit.
2. Parties cannot stipulate to jurisdiction over the subject matter where none exists. Polk County v. Sofka, 702 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 1997). Further, it has been generally stated that the resolutions of questions of law rests upon the court, uninfluenced by stipulations of the parties, and accordingly, …stipulations as to the law are invalid and ineffective. The same rule applies to legal conclusions arising from stipulated facts. 73 Am. Jur. 2d Stipulations § 5 (1974). As such, a stipulation treated as an agreement concerning the legal effect of admitted facts is inoperative, since the court cannot be controlled by agreement of counsel on a subsidiary question of law. Swift & Company v. Hocking Valley Railway Company, 243 U.S. 281, 37 S.Ct. 287 (1917). The parties in the instant case agreed to limit the issues to how much, if any, interest is owed by the Defendant, thereby effectively stipulating that a valid assignment exists. A legal conclusion arises from this factual stipulation. As such, Plaintiff may not rely on the stipulation to bind or circumscribe this Court in its determination of standing.
3. When a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it has no power to decide the case and any judgment entered is null and void, can be stricken from the record on motion at any time, and may be collaterally attacked. 32 Fla. Jur. 2d Judgments and Decrees § 89 (1994). This Court holds that because no evidence of an assignment has been presented, Plaintiff did not have standing at the time this lawsuit was filed. As such, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the claim and must therefore dismiss this action. All previous judgments and orders entered in this action are void. As a result, Plaintiff’s argument that the Final Judgment and Dismissal with Prejudice of the appeal puts an end to the issue of assignment and standing is also without merit.
WHEREFORE it is:
FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. That all previous Orders and Judgments entered in this action are void.
2. That Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED.
* * *
