We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss de novo. West v. West , 126 So. 3d 437, 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Former husband argues that, assuming the action was filed in the wrong division, the trial court erred by failing to transfer his case to the family court instead of dismissing it.
Although the dissolution of marriage petition was properly dismissed, the family court should have sua sponte transferred the ancillary petition to the civil division of the circuit court rather than dismissing it with prejudice. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.060(a); Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.060; West v. West, 126 So.3d 437, 438–39 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (citing Gross v. Franklin, 387 So.2d 1046, 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)); Chanin v. Feigenheimer, 111 So.3d 292, 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Fort v. Fort, 951 So.2d 1020, 1022 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)); Weaver v. Hotchkiss, 972 So.2d 1060, 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Courts have long recognized the importance of assigning cases to the correct divisions of the circuit court. See, e.g., Art. V, §§ 7, 20(c)(10), Fla. Const.; § 43.30, Fla. Stat. (2015); Williams v. State, 737 So.2d 1141, 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
“We review dismissal orders de novo.” West v. West, 126 So.3d 437, 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (citing Simpson v. State, 33 So.3d 776, 778 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) ). The Complaint facially alleges a cause of action against a trustee based on a prior judgment.
And as the Florida civil court explained, "'[i]ndependent actions' are not filed in probate court." App'x at 153 (citing Fla. Stat. § 733.705(5) (2016)); see also West v. West, 126 So.3d 437, 438 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013) (recognizing that "independent actions" are properly filed in Florida civil court, not probate court). That the parties' rights to the AORLLC interest will not be adjudicated by the probate court strongly undercuts Defendant's argument that exercising federal jurisdiction over this dispute would impermissibly interfere with the Florida probate court's control over the AORLLC interest.
However, because the two-year statute of limitations has expired-barring the filing of a new action, the trial court shall transfer the case to the civil division if the court determines that Geoffrey must defend his claim in an independent civil action. See West v. West, 126 So.3d 437, 438-39 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding that the personal representative could not refile his civil claims against the estate in the civil division since the statutory period had expired and that the only option was to have the claims transferred); see also Payette v. Clark, 559 So.2d 630, 632-33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (holding that where the probate petition alleged four counts under the Probate Code and two counts seeking money damages in a civil action, the proper disposition was to sever the civil counts and transfer them to the proper division); In re Guardianship of Bentley, 342 So.2d 1045, 1046-47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) ("For efficiency in administration, the Circuit Court is frequently divided into divisions, with each division handling certain types of cases.
Id.West v. West , 126 So.3d 437, 438–39 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). If the appropriate remedy for an action filed in the wrong division of the court is a transfer to the proper division, then dismissal with prejudice was clearly error. We decline to discuss in which division of the trial court the complaint should have been filed because the appellate record is not sufficiently developed for us to conduct such an analysis.