In Re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure

52 So. 3d 579, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 494, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 1507, 2010 WL 3488983
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided September 8, 2010·No. SC10-148·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the Court for consideration of proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

The Florida Bar Civil Procedure Rules Committee (committee) has filed its regular-cycle report of proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The committee proposes the adoption of new Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.071 (Constitutional Challenge to State Statute or County or Municipal Charter, Ordinance, or Franchise; Notice by Party), new form 1.975 (Notice of Compliance When Constitutional Challenge is Brought), and new rule 1.285 (Inadvertent Disclosure of Privileged Materials), as well as amendments to rule 1.080 (Service of Pleadings and Papers); rule 1.100(c)(1) (Pleadings and Motions; Caption) and form 1.901 (Caption); rule 1.810 (Depositions Upon Oral Examination); rule 1.340 (Interrogatories to Parties); rule 1.351 (Production of Documents and Things Without Deposition); rule 1.360 (Examination of Persons); rule 1.410 (Subpoena); rule 1.420 (Dismissal of Actions); rule 1.442 (Proposals for Settlement); rule 1.470 (Exception Unnecessary; Jury Instructions); rule 1.480 (Motion for a Directed Verdict); rule 1.510 (Summary Judgment); rule 1.525 (Motions for Costs and Attorneys’ Fees); and form 1.923 (Eviction Summons/Residential). The committee also recommends deletion of forms 1.985 (Standard Jury Instructions) and 1.986 (Verdicts).

Prior to submission to the Court, the proposals were published for comment in The Florida Bar News. Several comments were received by the committee, and in response to those comments, minor revisions were made to some of the proposals. After submission to the Court, all of the committee’s proposed amendments were published once again for comment. Two comments were received, and the committee filed responses to those comments.

Upon consideration of the committee’s proposals, the comments filed by interested parties and the committee’s responses thereto, we adopt the amendments as proposed by the committee, with several modifications as more fully explained below.

First, the committee proposes amending subdivision (b) of rule 1.080 (Service of Pleadings and Papers) to treat service by hand delivery after 5:00 p.m. the same as service by mail. This proposal was prompted by the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in Castillo v. Vlaminck de Castillo, 771 So.2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). In that case, the district court noted that rule 1.080, as currently worded, can produce an unfair result because it treats a pleading as timely served if it was mailed at 11:59 p.m. on the last day for service but would not treat the pleading as timely served if it was hand delivered on the same day after 5:00 p.m. We agree with the committee that just as service by mail is complete upon mailing, service by hand delivery should be deemed complete on the day delivery is accomplished by one of the methods enumerated in rule 1.080(b). However, we do not agree that service by hand delivery should be equated to service by mail, such that it triggers the *581 additional time for responsive pleadings after service by mail provided under rule 1.090(e). Accordingly, we adopt a modified version of the committee’s proposed amendment as follows:

(b) Service; How Made. When service is required or permitted to be made upon a party represented by an attorney, service shall be made upon the attorney unless service upon the party is ordered by the court. Service on the attorney or party shall be made by delivering a copy or mailing it to the attorney or the party at the last known address or, if no address is known, by leaving it with the clerk of the court. Service by mail shall be complete upon mailing. Delivery of a copy within this rule shall be complete upon: (1) handing it to the attorney or to the party, (2) leaving it at the attorney’s or party’s office with a clerk or other person in charge thereof, (3) if there is no one in charge, leaving it in a conspicuous place therein, (4) if the office is closed or the person to be served has no office, leaving it at the person’s usual place of abode with some person of his or her family above 15 years of age and informing such person of the contents, or (5) transmitting it by facsimile to the attorney’s or party’s office with a cover sheet containing the sender’s name, firm, address, telephone number, and facsimile number, and the number of pages transmitted. When service is made by facsimile, a copy shall also be served by any other method permitted by this rule. Facsimile service occurs when transmission is complete. Service by delivery after 5:00 p.m. shall be deemed to-have been made on the next day-that is-not a Saturday,.Sunday, or legal holidaycom-plete on the date of the delivery.

Second, in response to a request from the Florida Bar Attorney-Client Privilege Task Force, the committee proposed new rule 1.285, governing inadvertent disclosure of privileged materials. Proposed subdivision (d) of this rule, setting out factors the court may consider in resolving a dispute as to whether a privilege asserted under the rule is valid, may address an issue of substantive law that is not appropriately addressed in a rule of procedure. Thus, while we express no opinion on the substance of the committee’s proposal in this regard, we decline to adopt proposed subdivision (d) as part of new rule 1.285.

The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure are hereby amended as set forth in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by underscoring; deletions are indicated by struck-through type. The committee notes are offered for explanation only and are not adopted as an official part of the rules. The amendments shall become effective January 1, 2011, at 12:01 a.m.

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur. POLSTON, J., concurs in result.

APPENDIX

RULE 1.071. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO STATE STATUTE OR COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL CHARTER, ORDINANCE, OR FRANCHISE; NOTICE BY PARTY

A party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a state statute or a county or municipal charter, ordinance, or franchise must promptly

(a) file a notice of constitutional question stating the question and identifying the paper that raises it; and

*582 (b)serve the notice and the pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a state statute or a county or municipal charter, ordinance, or franchise on the Attorney General or the state attorney of the .judicial circuit in which the action is pending, by either certified or registered mail. Service of the notice and pleading, written motion, or other paper does not require joinder of the Attorney General or the state attorney as a party to the action.

Committee Notes

2010 Adoption.

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

In Re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 52 So. 3d 579, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 494, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 1507, 2010 WL 3488983 (Fla. 2010).

52 So. 3d 579 (In Re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Trace Elements, Inc. v. Nadja MacKensen
Supreme Court of Florida, 2026
Saterbo v. Markuson
210 So. 3d 135 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Miley v. Nash
171 So. 3d 145 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
State v. Florida Workers' Advocates
167 So. 3d 500 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Bank of America, N.A. v. Edward Lukas a/k/a Edward J. Lucas
166 So. 3d 965 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Cypress Fairway Condominium Ass'n v. Cypress Madison Ownership Co.
163 So. 3d 730 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Valerie Audiffred v. Thomas B. Arnold
161 So. 3d 1274 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2015)
Ancel Pratt, Jr. v. Michael C. Weiss, D.O.
161 So. 3d 1268 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2015)
A & B Bolt & Supply, Inc. v. Whitco Supply, L.L.C.
167 So. 3d 967 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2015)
Pino v. Bank of New York
121 So. 3d 23 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2013)
In re Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure
101 So. 3d 360 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2012)