MICHAEL R. HAYDEN AND DEBORAH HAYDEN, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT BEESE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Tenants appealed the denial of a temporary injunction to prevent eviction under Florida's summary procedure statute. The court upheld the constitutionality of the summary eviction statute and the delegation of rulemaking authority to the legislature, affirming the denial of the injunction.
The court held that section 51.011 is constitutional and that rule 1.010 itself demonstrates it is not an improper delegation because it expressly authorizes statutory enactment of rules for summary procedures and provides that summary statutes govern only when they do not conflict with the Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also affirmed the denial of the temporary injunction on the basis that appellants have an adequate remedy at law.
[1] Florida's summary procedure statute is constitutional, as the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure expressly permit statutory enactment of rules for summary procedures.
[2] Legislative enactment of procedural rules is not automatically prohibited as an incursion into the rule-making power of the Supreme Court of Florida, unless such rules co…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“These rules apply to all actions of a civil nature and all special statutory proceedings in the circuit courts and county courts except those to which the probate and guardianship rules apply or the summary claims procedure rules apply. The form, content, procedure and time for pleading in all special statutory proceedings shall be as prescribed by the statutes governing the proceeding unless these rules specifically provide to the contrary.”
Establishes that Rule 1.010 expressly authorizes statutory enactment of summary procedures and that such statutes control unless they conflict with the Rules of Civil Procedure
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael and Deborah Hayden were residential tenants with an oral lease under landlord Robert Beese. Hayden was injured after falling over plumbing pip…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unconstitutional Delegation Of Legislative Power cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Michael and Deborah Hayden appeal from a non-final order denying their motion for a temporary injunction to prevent their landlord from evicting them under section 51.011, Florida Statutes (1989), the summary procedure statute.
The Haydens are tenants of residential property in Broward County who have an oral lease with their landlord, Robert Beese. As a result of his falling over plumbing pipes which were in the front yard of the rental property, Hayden sued the landlord for damages. Count II sought an injunction to prevent the landlord from evicting the Haydens under section 51.011, Florida Statutes (1989), on grounds that the statute was unconstitutional. Count III sought specific performance of the lease in which the landlord was obligated to maintain the property. Count IV sought damages for breach of contract.
At the hearing on the Haydens’ motion for temporary injunction, the Haydens argued that rule 1.010, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, was an improper delegation of authority to the legislature to adopt rules of procedure, thereby making section 51.-011, the summary procedure statute, unconstitutional. The court entered its order denying the injunction and finding that the statute was constitutional, and the Hay-dens appeal.
Appellants acknowledge that previous cases have upheld the constitutionality of the summary procedure statute,1 but contend the analysis should go further to determine the constitutionality of rule 1.010. We find that rule 1.010 itself demonstrates that it is not unconstitutional in that it provides that the summary procedure statutes govern only in the event that they do not conflict with the Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 1.010 provides:
These rules apply to all actions of a civil nature and all special statutory proceedings in the circuit courts and county courts except those to which the probate and guardianship rules apply or the summary claims procedure rules apply. The form, content, procedure and time for pleading in all special statutory proceedings shall be as prescribed by the statutes governing the proceeding unless these rules specifically provide to the contrary. (Emphasis added.)
Said rule expressly authorizes statutory enactment of rules for summary procedures. Furthermore, the supreme court has always held that legislative enactment of rules of procedure is not automatically prohibited as an incursion into the rule-making power of the supreme court, e.g. The Florida Bar, re: Amendment to Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.442, 550 So. 2d 442 (Fla.1989); Williams v. First Union National Bank of Florida, 591 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), unless such procedural rules are contrary to those promulgated by the supreme court, see Haven Federal Savings & Loan v. Kirian, 579 So. 2d 730 (Fla.1991). We, therefore, hold that appellants have failed to demonstrate the constitutional infirmity of section 51.011, Florida Statutes (1989).
The trial court also denied appellants’ motion for injunctive relief. We would affirm that ruling also on the basis that appellants have an adequate remedy at law. Although the eviction action has not yet been filed, if and when it is, appellants could raise their constitutional objection at that time. Furthermore, it does not appear that any irreparable harm will befall them if the temporary injunction is not granted.
Accordingly, we affirm the order appealed from.
LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur. . Lane v. Brith, 313 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Commitment: John R. Cartwright. John R. Cartwright v. State, 870 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…orm, content, procedure, and time for pleading in all special statutory proceedings shall be as prescribed by the statutes governing the proceeding unless these rules specifically provide to the contrary.” (Emphasis added). See also Hayden v. Beese, 596 So. 2d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (upholding constitutionality of rule 1.010 against claim that the rule unconstitutionally delegates judicial power). Rule 1.010 appears to be based on considerations similar to those expressed by the supreme court in Caple.…
-
Synchron, Inc. v. Ilya Kogan, 757 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…xclusive bailiwick of the Florida Supreme Court. See Art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.010, statutory summary proceedings generally are governed by section 51.011, Florida Statutes (1997). See Hayden v. Beese, 596 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). That statute expressly contemplates that the defendant is to be [*566] served with process, and it makes no allowance for a method of service other than as prescribed for proceedings generally. See § 51.011(1), Fla. Stat. (1997)…
-
…ocedural rules. So, we need not reach the issue of whether chapter 75's finality provision is a matter of substantive law. And even if the issue presented were purely procedural, there are no separation-of-power concerns. See, e.g., Hayden v. Beese, 596 So. 2d 1207, 1208-09 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (holding that rule 1.010 was constitutionally sound). V In conclusion, we hold that section 75.09's finality language precludes application of rule 1.540 to final judgments validating bonds after the time for appeal ha…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Vamper, 579 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1991)
- Haven Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Kirian, 579 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1991)
- The Fla. Bar re: Amendment to Rules of Civil Procedure, 550 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1989)
- Williams v. First Union Nat'l Bank OF Fla., 591 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Lane v. Althmese Brith, 313 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)