"The internal operation of the court system and the assignment of judges to various divisions does not limit a particular judge's jurisdiction." Malave v. Malave, 178 So.3d 51, 54-55 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (quoting In re Peterson, 364 So.2d 98, 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) ). When a case is filed in the wrong division, it should be transferred to the correct division.
"All circuit court judges have the same jurisdiction within their respective circuits." Malave v. Malave , 178 So. 3d 51, 54 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (quoting In Interest of Peterson , 364 So. 2d 98, 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) ). "A circuit court ... does not lack jurisdiction simply because a case is filed or assigned to the wrong division within the circuit court." Id.
Despite these differences, all circuit court judges have jurisdiction to hear both types of TPR proceedings. See Adoption Miracles, LLC v. S.C.W., 912 So.2d 368, 373-74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ("The court in which the adoption proceeding is pending and the court in which the dependency proceeding is pending are both circuit courts with jurisdiction to determine these issues."); Malave v. Malave, 178 So.3d 51, 54 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ("A circuit court, however, does not lack jurisdiction simply because a case is filed or assigned to the wrong division within the circuit court."); In re Peterson, 364 So.2d 98, 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) ("A judge in the probate division or the juvenile division or the civil division or the criminal division has the authority and jurisdiction to hear cases involving child custody or dependency. The internal operation of the court system and the assignment of judges to various divisions does not limit a particular judge's jurisdiction."); see also § 39.01(19), .013(2); § 63.032(8), .087(1).
Despite these differences, all circuit court judges have jurisdiction to hear both types of TPR proceedings. See Adoption Miracles, LLC v. S.C.W., 912 So.2d 368, 373-74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ("The court in which the adoption proceeding is pending and the court in which the dependency proceeding is pending are both circuit courts with jurisdiction to determine these issues."); Malave v. Malave, 178 So.3d 51, 54 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ("A circuit court, however, does not lack jurisdiction simply because a case is filed or assigned to the wrong division within the circuit court."); In re Peterson, 364 So.2d 98, 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) ("A judge in the probate division or the juvenile division or the civil division or the criminal division has the authority and jurisdiction to hear cases involving child custody or dependency. The internal operation of the court system and the assignment of judges to various divisions does not limit a particular judge's jurisdiction."); see also § 39.01(19), .013(2); § 63.032(8), .087(1).
Thus, to the extent it has not yet done so, the Appellate Division shall transfer the Wal–Mart case to the Circuit Civil Division. See 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."); accord, Malave v. Malave, 178 So.3d 51, 55 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ("[T]the filing of an action in the wrong division should be remedied by reassignment to the correct division as opposed to a dismissal of the action."). Filing in the wrong division is not a jurisdictional defect; it is a purely administrative one.
Although we have significant skepticism about the merits of Mr. Lucas's civil suit, it was error to dismiss it on procedural grounds solely applicable to a postconviction motion in a criminal case. See Malave v. Malave, 178 So.3d 51, 55 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ("[T]he filing of an action in the wrong division should be remedied by reassignment to the correct division as opposed to a dismissal of the action."). We therefore reverse that decision and remand with instructions to vacate the order of dismissal and transfer or otherwise ensure assignment of the case to the appropriate civil division of the circuit court.