In Re Amendments to Rules of Civ. Proc.

536 So. 2d 974
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedDecember 30, 1988
Docket72183
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 536 So. 2d 974 (In Re Amendments to Rules of Civ. Proc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Amendments to Rules of Civ. Proc., 536 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1988).

Opinion

536 So.2d 974 (1988)

In re AMENDMENTS TO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

No. 72183.

Supreme Court of Florida.

October 6, 1988.
Motion for Clarification December 30, 1988.

Rutledge R. Liles, President, Jacksonville, Stephen N. Zack, President-elect, Miami, and John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, Tallahassee, of The Florida Bar; and Bruce J. Berman, Chairman, The Florida Bar, Civil Procedure Rules Committee, *975 Miami, and Henry Latimer, Former Chairman, The Florida Bar, Civil Procedure Rules Committee, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.

Henry P. Trawick, Jr., Sarasota, Joseph P. Klock, Jr., Miami, and Ira Abrams, Coconut Grove, respondent to petition.

PER CURIAM.

The Civil Procedure Rules Committee of The Florida Bar has submitted its quadrennial report of proposed changes in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. After full consideration of the recommendations of the Civil Rules Committee, the action of the Board of Governors on each proposed rule change, and comments of interested members of the Bar and of lay persons or organizations, we amend the rules as set forth below. While we have adopted in large part the committee's recommendations, we have modified the proposed rules where necessary and have amended several rules which the committee did not address to conform with other amendments. The committee's recommended change to Rule 1.580 (Writ of Possession) was rejected by the Court.

The most controversial recommendation was the committee's proposed change to Rule 1.360 dealing with physical and mental examination. The rule change, as proposed, not only provided for examination of persons by experts other than physicians, it also allowed examination, upon request, without court order. The Board of Governors was unanimously opposed to the proposed rule change and submitted its own proposed rule. The Board was opposed to any examination without court order, but recognized a change is needed in the area of personal injury litigation. The Board was particularly concerned about abuse in the area of domestic relations cases and other non-personal injury cases. We share the Board's concerns and adopt its proposed rule with only minor modifications.

A brief explanation of substantive changes follows.

Subsection (j) was added to Rule 1.070 to require plaintiffs to cause service of original summons within 120 days of filing the complaint absent good cause for further delay.

Subsection (a) of Rule 1.140 was amended to fix a time within which amended pleadings, responsive pleadings or more definite statements which are permitted or required by the court and responses to those pleadings or statements must be served when no time is fixed by the court.

Subsection (g) of Rule 1.170 was amended to clarify that cross-claims must be served as initial pleadings only against a party who has not previously entered an appearance in the action.

Subsection (a) of Rule 1.190 was amended to conform with the 10-day time requirement of subsection 1.140(a)(3).

A new subsection (5) has been added to Rule 1.200 to clarify that case management conferences may be used for scheduling the disclosure of expert witnesses and the discovery of the opinion and factual information held by those experts.

Subsection (b)(2) has been added to Rule 1.280 to enable discovery of the existence and contents of indemnity agreements. Subsection (b)(3)(A) (renumbered (b)(4)(A)) of Rule 1.280 was amended to allow, without leave of court, depositions of experts who are expected to be used at trial. Subsection (b)(4)(D) was added to Rule 1.280 to define the term "expert" as used in the rules.

Subsection (b)(4) of Rule 1.310 was amended to provide for depositions by videotape. Subsection (c) of Rule 1.310 was amended to provide for the taking of depositions by telephone.

Subsection (a) of Rule 1.340 was amended to enlarge the total number of interrogatories which may be propounded without leave of court from 25 to 30.

Rule 1.360 was amended to allow for examination of a person by experts other than physicians.

Rule 1.380 was amended to conform with the amendment to Rule 1.360.

Subsection (c) of Rule 1.390 was amended to clarify the procedure to be used in *976 paying an expert witness for his or her appearance at a deposition.

A new subsection (f) of Rule 1.431 was added to assure the right to "back-strike" prospective jurors until the entire panel has been accepted in civil cases.

Subsection (c) of Rule 1.440 was amended to eliminate confusion regarding notice for trial.

Rule 1.460 was amended to conform with Rule 2.085(c), Florida Rules of Judicial Administration.

Subsection (b) of Rule 1.470 was amended to require the court to specifically inform counsel of the charges it intends to give and to encourage the court to furnish written copies of their charges to juries.

Form 1.948 was amended to eliminate the words "third party plaintiff."

Form 1.923 was added to inform those sought to be evicted of the procedure they must follow to resist eviction.

Form 1.902(b) was added as a second form to be used for personal service on individuals. This form notifies defendants or respondents of their obligations to respond.

Form 1.975 was amended to provide a more extensive financial affidavit to be used in dissolution of marriage cases. This change is consistent with the child support guidelines set forth in section 61.30, Florida Statutes (1987). The need for an amendment to this form was brought to the Court's attention in connection with a challenge to Administrative Order 1.830 of the Eighth Judicial Circuit of Florida which directed members of the Bar, when required by Florida Rule Civil Procedure 1.611(a), to file an affidavit specifying financial circumstances, to use the more extensive form of financial affidavit that we adopt herein. Administrative Order No. 1.830 — Eighth Judicial Circuit, no. 72,682.

The appended amended and new provisions of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, including new and amended forms, will become effective at 12:01 a.m., January 1, 1989. Deletions are indicated by the use of struck-through type; new language is indicated by underscoring. Committee comments are included for explanation and guidance only and are not adopted as an official part of the rules.

It is so ordered.

EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

The motion for clarification filed by Henry P. Trawick, Jr. is granted to the extent reflected in the appended amended and new provisions of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, including new and amended forms, which will become effective at 12:01 a.m., January 1, 1989. The motion is denied as to all matters not addressed therein.

The Civil Rules Committee has added a sentence to the committee note to Rule 1.340 explaining that the amendment to subdivision (a) of that rule was not intended to change any other requirements of the rule.

EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

APPENDIX

CIVIL RULES RULE 1.070. Process. (a) (NO CHANGE) (b) (NO CHANGE) (c) (NO CHANGE) (d) (NO CHANGE) (e) (NO CHANGE) (f) (NO CHANGE) (g) (NO CHANGE) (h) (NO CHANGE) (i) (NO CHANGE) (j) Summons — Time Limit. If service of the initial process and initial pleading is not made upon a defendant within 120 days *977

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Threadgill v. Nishimura
222 So. 3d 633 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Glenn Robert Broga v. Linda Marie Broga
166 So. 3d 183 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Amaran v. Marath
34 So. 3d 88 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Yangco v. Yangco
901 So. 2d 217 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Davis v. New River Development, LLC.
877 So. 2d 848 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Buttigieg v. Prunetti
610 So. 2d 667 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Partin v. Flagler Hosp., Inc.
581 So. 2d 240 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Estevez v. Olarte
47 Fla. Supp. 2d 86 (Miami-Dade County Court, 1991)
Smith v. Smith
575 So. 2d 228 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Trevino v. Chadderton
571 So. 2d 110 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Utset v. Campos
548 So. 2d 834 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Gene B. Glick Co. v. Oliver
36 Fla. Supp. 2d 208 (Broward County Court, 1989)
In re Amendments to Rules of Civil Procedure
545 So. 2d 866 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1989)
Peyton v. Browning
541 So. 2d 1341 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Orange County v. Gipson
539 So. 2d 526 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
536 So. 2d 974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendments-to-rules-of-civ-proc-fla-1988.