Johnny Antonio Thomas v. Chaney's Used Cars, Inc.

── Johnny Antonio Thomas v. Chaney's Used Cars, Inc. ── Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ Case No. 6D2024-0053 Lower Tribunal No. 22-SP-859 _____________________________ JOHNNY ANTONIO THOMAS, Appellant, v. CHANEY’S USED CARS, INC., Appellee. _____________________________ Appeal from the County Court for Highlands County. Anthony L. Ritenour, Judge. April 24, 2026 BROWNLEE, J. Johnny Antonio Thomas appeals the dismissal of his counterclaims and setoff defenses in a small-claims suit filed by Chaney’s Used Cars, Inc., to recover the deficiency owed on a car loan after repossession and sale. Because the order dismissing the counterclaims and setoff defenses did not dispose of Chaney’s pending statement of claim against Thomas, and because the counterclaims appeared on initial review to be factually intertwined with the statement of claim, we ordered Thomas to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Having considered Thomas’s response and Chaney’s reply, we now dismiss the appeal. We have an independent duty in every case to verify that we have jurisdiction. Riggins v. Clifford R. Rhoades, P.A., 373 So. 3d 655, 661 n.4 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023). In this case, Thomas first urges we have jurisdiction to review the dismissal of the counterclaims as a final, appealable order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110. But because we disagree with Thomas that any of the six counterclaims dismissed by the lower court are permissive, rather than compulsory, we find no basis to review the order under rule 9.110. The distinction between permissive and compulsory counterclaims is “critical” to an analysis of jurisdiction because while orders dismissing permissive claims are final and immediately appealable, orders dismissing compulsory claims are not appealable until the original cause has been finally resolved. Riggins, 373 So. 3d at 661. The difference between these two classifications is in the relationship the counterclaim bears to the original claim—compulsory counterclaims arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the original claim, while permissive counterclaims do not. Compare Fla. Sm. Cl. R. 7.100(a) (“Compulsory Counterclaim. If a defendant has a claim or setoff against a plaintiff that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim . . . .”), with Fla. Sm. Cl. R. 7.100(b) (“Permissive Counterclaim. If a 2 defendant has a claim or setoff against a plaintiff that does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim. . . .”); see also Riggins, 373 So. 3d at 661 (explaining that compulsory counterclaims are logically related to the main claim, as they arise from “the ‘same aggregate of operative facts’” (quoting Proino Breakfast Club, II, Inc. v. OGI Cap., Inc., 331 So. 3d 846, 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021))). Here, the aggregate facts underlying the statement of claim include Thomas’s purchase of a car under a financing agreement, alleged missed payments on the loan, the repossession of the car, its sale at auction, and the existence of a remaining balance on the loan after the sale. And all of Thomas’s six counterclaims—(1) violation of the Federal Odometer Act; (2) violation of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code; (3) trespass to chattels; (4) conversion; (5) violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act; and (6) declaratory judgment as to the validity of the “purported ind