INTRODUCTION JURISDICTION,VENUE AND DIVISION RELEVANCE Legal Commentary on the Definition of “Jurisdiction” Fla. Stat. § 736.0103(14) defines the term “jurisdiction.” The text of the subsection reads: “Jurisdiction” with respect to a geographic area

Here’s a concise response to the issues and questions outlined in your document regarding the eviction proceedings involving the Plaintiff/Appellee and the Defendant/Appellant: ### Question 1: **Is the lower tribunal in violation of judicial administration and abuse of discretion per Florida law, the Constitution, and federal regulations in a res judicata summary eviction proceeding?** **Answer:** Yes. The lower tribunal exhibited a potential violation of procedural due process by allowing the Plaintiff/Appellee to re-litigate the issue of possession while a previous eviction matter was pending appeal. This constitutes an abuse of discretion, particularly if the facts of the case remain unchanged and the same parties are involved. The failure to provide adequate notice to the Defendant/Appellant of the proceedings further compounds the issue, undermining the fairness and transparency expectation in judicial processes. In summary eviction cases, solely possession may be adjudicated, not overlapping rent issues, so the tribunal's actions could infringe on the Defendant’s rights under Florida law, especially under Fla. Stat. § 83.60 and § 83.232, governing eviction procedures. ### Question 2: **Is there legal authority for the Plaintiff/Appellee to file a second eviction pending an appeal on the first cause when the defendant and cause are the same?** **Answer:** Generally, there is no legal authority for the Plaintiff/Appellee to file a second eviction while an appeal for the first eviction is pending if the causes of action are the same. Such action can be barred by the doctrine of res judicata, which holds that a claim cannot be re-litigated once it has been judged by a competent court. Only if an exception applies—such as the previous case being dismissed without prejudice or due to lack of jurisdiction—could the Plaintiff/Appellee potentially pursue a second eviction. ### Question 3: **Can a trespass warning on a writ of possession under the VAWA Act of 2022 on a one-year lease be issued and enforced by the Plaintiff property owners prior to the full expiration of the lease period?** **Answer:** No. Under the VAWA Act and relevant state laws, particularly regarding equitable protections for tenants, enforcing a trespass warning or evicting a tenant prior to the expiration of a lease could be interpreted as retaliation or failure to adhere to VAWA's provisions regarding housing stability for survivors of domestic violence. The lease agreement typically binds the landlord until its full term expires, and any violation without sufficient cause or due legal process may lead to legal ramifications against the Plaintiff property owners. ### Conclusion: The outlined matters indicate clear procedural and substantive issues regarding the execution of eviction proceedings; specifically, the need for procedural fairness, proper notice, and adherence to existing laws governing tenant rights, particularly for vulnerable parties under the VAWA protections. The Defendant/Appellant’s claims of violations warrant serious consideration and necessitate a thorough review by the appellate court to ensure the integrity of judicial processes is maintained.