Case Title: In Re Amendments to Rules of Civil Procedure

Citation: 458 So. 2d 245

Docket Number: 62699, 65083

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1984-11-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
458 So. 2d 245 (1984)
In re AMENDMENTS TO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
Nos. 65083, 62699.

Supreme Court of Florida.
September 13, 1984.
Rehearing Denied November 15, 1984.
On Petition for Rehearing and Clarification November 15, 1984.
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, Tallahassee, for The Florida Bar.
Wilfred C. Varn, Chairman, Tallahassee, for The Florida Bar, Civil Procedure Rules Committee.
Bill Wagner, Chairman, Tampa, for The Supreme Court Committee For Study Of Court Documents Disposal.
Henry P. Trawick, Jr. of Trawick & Griffis, Sarasota, responding to petition.
PER CURIAM.
Appended to this order are the 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, 1985. Deletions are indicated by the use of struck-through type; new language is indicated by underscoring.
After full consideration of the recommendations of the Civil Rules Committee, the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar, and many interested members of the Bar, we adopt the changes set forth below. *246 Committee comments are included for explanation and guidance only and are not adopted as an official part of the rules.
Many of the amendments were grammatical or syntactic changes intended to clarify without changing the meaning of the rule. A brief explanation of substantive changes follows.
Subsection (c) was added to Rule 1.060 to provide a method by which actions may be transferred as authorized in the other portions of the rule.
Rule 1.080 was amended to define the date of filing of papers and pleadings in a case for purposes of determining matters of timeliness under these rules.
Rule 1.180, dealing with third-party practice, has been amended to allow the defendant to assert other claims against the third-party defendant.
Rule 1.200 has been substantially amended to provide for a case management conference as a part of pretrial procedure.
Rule 1.310 has been amended to allow depositions to be taken by telephone. Also, in the wake of the 1981 deletion of the requirement of automatic filing of all depositions, confusion arose over the means of obtaining copies of depositions which were filed. The rule has been amended to provide that the party upon whose motion the deposition is filed will bear the initial cost of providing copies to those parties which do not already have them.
Rule 1.340 has been amended in several aspects. Subsection (a) requires the use of form interrogatories where such forms have been adopted by this Court. Additionally, we have adopted the recommendation of Henry P. Trawick, Jr., that initial interrogatories be limited to twenty-five absent leave of the court to exceed that number. Subsection (c) requires that a party electing to produce its records to a party seeking discovery must provide reasonable assistance in helping the discovery party locate the relevant material. The requirement that an original and a copy of the interrogatories be served on the responding party has been deleted from subsection (e).
Finally, subsection (f), which related to propounding interrogatories in the no longer extant Medical Liability Mediation Proceedings, has been deleted.
Rule 1.420 was amended to provide for automatic dissolution of lis pendens upon dismissal of the related action.
Changes made in Rule 1.440 emphasize the court's ability to sever issues for trial in complex third-party practice and delete any distinction between actions in law and equity in the timetable for setting cases for trial.
Subsection (e) of Rule 1.450, proscribing references to insurance coverage or carriers in medical malpractice trials has been deleted. After our 1983 rejection of the Bar's petition to delete subsection (e), the Committee again recommended its deletion and we are now persuaded of the wisdom of that course. See The Florida Bar. In re Rules of Civil Procedure (Deletion of Rule 1.450(e)), 429 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 1983).
Rule 1.490 is amended to proscribe reference of a cause to a master without consent of all the parties. Although this may not of late have been the universal practice in Florida, it has long been the law. Slatcoff v. Dezen, 74 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1954). This does not affect the use of masters where such use is provided for by statute.
Rule 1.500 now requires the clerk to notify a party attempting to file papers after a default has been entered against him of the entry of that default.
Rule 1.530 defines the point at which time for filing a motion for rehearing or a motion for new trial begins to run.
Rule 1.610, relating to injunctions, has been extensively revised. The practical effect of the 1980 amendment to this rule which authorized temporary restraining orders did not achieve the intended result. Temporary restraining orders entered subject to the rigid time limitations were automatically dissolved when courts were unable to fit the hearings required for imposition of a preliminary injunction into crowded dockets. See, e.g., Sun Tech, Inc. v. Fortune Personnel of Fort Lauderdale, *247 412 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The revised rule does away with temporary restraining orders and restores the former procedure for temporary and permanent injunctions. In response to a concern voiced by the Matrimonial Law Commission, the Committee recommended, and we adopt, the elimination of a bond on a temporary injunction issued to prevent physical injury or abuse to a natural person. Finally, provision is made for a hearing on a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction to be held within five days of the application for a hearing.
Rule 1.630 is entirely new. It tailors procedures related to extraordinary remedies to the trial court. It is designed to complement Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100.
The forms for final judgment appended to this order have been amended to provide for specifying an interest rate for post-judgment interest.
The Supreme Court has adopted form interrogatories to be used in tort actions arising out of automobile accidents and in marital dissolution cases as provided in amended Rule 1.340.
We have rejected the Committee's proposed amendment to Rule 1.432, dealing with disqualification of judges. The amendment would have added to the rule, "Supporting affidavits are not required." This language is surplusage as nothing in the current rule requires the affidavits. That procedural requirement is a feature of sections 38.02, 38.04 and 38.10, Florida Statutes (1983), and, in view of this Court's continuing refusal to adopt it as a rule of this Court, the statutory requirement is constitutionally invalid.
All rules and statutes in conflict with the following rules are hereby superseded as of the effective date of this revision.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
1984 Amendment. Because of confusion in some circuits, subdivision (c) is added:
(a) to specify who is to pay the clerk's service charge on transfer;
(b) to provide for the circumstance in which the service charge is not paid; and
(c) to require the dismissal to be by the court which entered the order of transfer.
1984 Amendment. The Committee is recommending an amendment to Rule 1.530(b) to cure the confusion created by Casto v. Casto, 404 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). That recommendation requires an amendment to Rule 1.080(e) specifying that the date of filing is that shown on the face of the paper.
1984 Amendment. Subdivision (a) is amended to permit the defendant to have the same right to assert claims arising out of the transaction or occurrence that all of the other parties to the action have. It overrules the decisions in Miramar Construction, Inc. v. El Conquistador Condominium, 303 So. 2d 81, and Richard's Paint Manufacturing Co. v. Onyx Paints, Inc., 363 So. 2d 596 to that extent. The term defendant is used throughout instead of third party plaintiff for clarity and brevity reasons and refers to the defendant serving the summons and third party complaint on a third party defendant or, when applicable, to the similar summons and fourth party.
1984 Amendment. This is a substantial rewording of Rule 1.200. Subdivision (a) is added to authorize case management conferences in an effort to give the court more control over the progress of the action. All of the matters that the court can do under the case management conference can be done at the present time under other rules or because of the court's authority otherwise. The new subdivision merely emphasizes the court's authority and arranges an orderly method for the exercise of that authority. Subdivisions (a), (b) and (c) of the existing rule are relettered accordingly. Subdivision (a) of the existing rule is also amended to delete the reference to requiring the attorneys to appear at a pretrial conference by referring to the parties for that purpose. This is consistent with the language used throughout the rules and does not contemplate a change in present *250 procedure. Subdivisions (a)(5) and (6) of the existing rule are deleted since they are now covered adequately under the new subdivision (a). Subdivisions (b) and (c) of the existing rule are amended to accommodate the two types of conferences that are now authorized by the rules.
1984 Amendment. Subdivision (b)(7) is added to authorize deposition by telephone, with provision for any party to have a stenographic transcription at his own initial expense.
Subdivision (d) is changed to permit any party to terminate the deposition, not just the objecting party.
Subdivision (e) is changed to eliminate the confusing requirement that a transcript be submitted to the witness. The term has been construed as requiring the court reporter to travel, if necessary, to the witness and creates a problem when a witness is deposed in Florida and thereafter leaves the state before signing. The change is intended to permit the parties and the court reporter to handle such situations on an ad hoc basis as is most appropriate.
Subdivision (f) is the Committe's action in response to the petition seeking amendment to Rule 1.310(f) filed in the Supreme Court Case No. 62,699. Subdivision (f) is changed to clarify the need for furnishing copies when a deposition, or part of it, is properly filed, to authorize the court to require a deposition to be both transcribed and filed and to specify that a party who does not obtain a copy of the deposition may get it from the court reporter unless ordered otherwise by the court. This eliminates the present requirement of furnishing a copy of the deposition, or material part of it, to a person who already has a copy in subsection (3)(A).
Subsection (f)(3)(B) broadens the authority of the court to require the filing of a deposition that has been taken, but not transcribed.
Subdivision (g) requires a party to obtain a copy of the deposition from the court *252 reporter unless the court orders otherwise. Generally, the court should not order a party who has a copy of the deposition to furnish it to someone who has neglected to obtain it when the deposition was transcribed. The person should obtain it from the court reporter unless there is a good reason why it cannot be obtained from the reporter.
1984 Amendment. Subdivision (a) is amended by adding the reference to approved forms of interrogatories. The intent is to eliminate the burden of unnecessary interrogatories.
Subdivision (c) is amended to add the requirement of detail in identifying records when they are produced as an alternative to answering the interrogatory or to designate the persons who will locate the records.
Subdivision (e) is changed to eliminate the requirement of serving an original and a copy of the interrogatories and of the answers in light of the 1981 amendment that no longer permits filing except in special circumstances.
Subdivision (f) is to be deleted since the Medical Liability Mediation Proceedings have been eliminated.
1984 Amendment. A perennial real property title problem occurs because of the failure to properly dispose of notices of lis pendens in the order of dismissal. Accordingly, the reference in subdivision (a)(1) with a disposition of notices of lis pendens has been deleted and a separate subdivision created to automatically dissolve notices of lis pendens whenever an action is dismissed under this rule.
1984 Amendment. Subdivision (a) is amended by adding a sentence to emphasize the authority given in Rule 1.270(b) for the severing of issues for trial.
Subdivision (c) is amended to delete the reference to law actions so that the rule will apply to all actions in which unliquidated damages are sought.
1984 Amendment. Subdivision (d) was repealed by the Supreme Court; see 403 So. 2d 926.
Subdivision (e): This rule was originally promulgated by the Supreme Court in Carter v. Sparkman, 335 So. 2d 802, 806 (Fla. 1976).
In the Florida Bar, in re Rules of Civil Procedure, 391 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1980), the Court requested the committee to consider the continued appropriateness of Rule 1.450(e). In response, the committee recommended its deletion. After oral argument in The Florida Bar: In re Rules of Civil Procedure, 429 So. 2d 311, the Court specifically declined to abolish the rule or *255 to adopt a similar rule for other types of actions.
The committee again considered Rule 1.450(e) in depth and at length and again recommends its deletion for the reason that no exception should be made in the rule to a particular type of action.
Subdivision (f): The West's Desk Copy Florida Rules of Court, at page 66 points out:
The retention of court records is the subject of Judicial Administration Rule 2.075.
1984 Amendment. The consent of all parties is required for any reference to a special master. Special masters may be used as provided by statute even with the rule change. See, Slatcoff v. Dezen, 74 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1954).
1984 Amendment. Subdivision (c) is amended to change the method by which the clerk handles papers filed after a default is entered. Instead of returning the papers to the party in default, the clerk will now be required to file them and merely notify the party that a default has been entered. The party can then take whatever action the party believes is appropriate.
This is to enable the court to judge the effect, if any, of the filing of any paper upon the default and the propriety of entering final judgment without notice to the party against whom the default was entered.
1984 Amendment. (b) This clarifies the time in which a motion for rehearing may be served. It specifies that the date of filing as shown on the face of the judgment in a non-jury action is the date from which the time for serving a motion for rehearing is calculated.
There is no change in the time for serving motion for new trial in a jury action, except the motion may be served before the rendition of the judgment.
1984 Amendment. Considerable dissatisfaction arose on the adoption of the 1980 rule, particularly because of the creation of the temporary restraining order with its inflexible time limits. See Sun Tech, Inc. v. Fortune Personnel of Ft. Lauderdale, 412 So. 2d 962. The attempt to balance the rights of the parties in 1980 failed because of court congestion and the inability in the existing circumstances to accommodate the inflexible time limits. These changes will restore injunction procedure to substantially the same as that existing before the 1980 change. The temporary restraining order terminology and procedure is abolished. The former procedure of temporary and permanent injunctions is restored. The requirement of findings and reasons and other details in an injunctive order are retained.
Subdivision (b) eliminates the need for a bond on a temporary injunction issued to prevent physical injury or abuse of a natural person.
Subdivision (e) institutes a requirement that a motion to dissolve an injunction shall be heard within five days after the movant applies for it. This provision emphasizes the importance of a prompt determination of the propriety of injunctive relief granted without notice or, if the circumstances have changed since the issuance of the injunctive order, the need for speedy relief as a result of the changes. Former subdivisions (a) and (b)(3) and (4) have been repealed because the new procedure makes them superfluous. The right of the court to consolidate the hearing on a temporary injunction with the trial of the action is not affected because that can still be accomplished under Rule 1.270(a).
1984 Amendment. Rule 1.630 replaces rules and statutes used before 1980 when the present Rules of Appellate Procedure were adopted. Experience has shown that Rule 9.100 is not designed for use in trial court. The times for proceeding, the methods of proceeding and the general nature of the procedure is appellate and presumes that the proceeding is basically an appellate proceeding. When the extraordinary remedies are sought in the trial court, these items do not usually exist and thus the rule is difficult to apply. The uniform procedure concept of Rule 9.100 has been retained with changes making the procedure fit trial court procedure. The requirement of attaching a copy of the record in subdivision (b) may not be possible within the time allowed for the initial pleading because of the unavailability of the record. In that event the plaintiff should file a motion to extend the time to allow the preparation of the record and supply it when prepared. The filing of a motion to extend the time should be sufficient to extend it until the motion can be decided by the court.