MICHAEL A. BARFIELD, APPELLANT,
v.
TOWN OF EATONVILLE, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Michael Barfield appealed the denial of his motion to recover attorney's fees and costs in a public records action against the Town of Eatonville under Florida's public records statute (Chapter 119). The appellate court reversed, holding that the Town unlawfully refused to produce public records by unjustifiably delaying their release, and that Barfield was entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
Barfield was entitled to recovery of his attorney's fees and costs. An unjustified delay in complying with a public records request amounts to an unlawful refusal under section 119.12(1), and the Town's explanation that its delay was caused by the clerk's wrongdoing or ineptitude does not provide a valid basis to deny fee recovery.
[1] A claim for attorney's fees under public records law does not become moot when the requested records are produced after the lawsuit is filed.
[2] The purpose of public records fee-shifting statutes is to encourage agencies to voluntarily comply with disclosure requirements.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“If a civil action is filed against an agency to enforce the provisions of this chapter and if the court determines that such agency unlawfully refused to permit a public record to be inspected, examined, or copied, the court shall assess and award, against the agency responsible, the reasonable costs of enforcement including reasonable attorneys' fees.”
States the statutory basis for awarding attorney's fees in public records actions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarfield made a written request for documents from the Town of Eatonville. The Town failed to produce the documents. Only after Barfield filed a lawsu…
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 Florida Public Records Act cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
This appeal is from a final order denying appellant’s motion for recovery of attorney’s fees and costs in connection with his action brought pursuant to the public records laws, Chapter 119, Florida Statutes.
The Florida Legislature has decreed that “It is the policy of this state that all state, county and municipal records shall be open for personal inspection by any person.” § 119.01(1), Fla. Stat. Section 119.12(1), Florida Statutes provides:
If a civil action is filed against an agency to enforce the provisions of this chapter and if the court determines that such agency unlawfully refused to permit a public record to be inspected, examined, or copied,the court shall assess and award, against the agency responsible, the reasonable costs of enforcement including reasonable attorneys’ fees.
The purpose underlying this section is to encourage public agencies to voluntarily comply with the requirements of Chapter 119, thereby ensuring that the state’s general policy is effectuated. New York Times Co. v. PHH Mental Health Services, Inc., 616 So. 2d 27 (Fla.1993). Section 119.12(1) authorizes recovery of attorney’s fees and costs when the agency unlawfully refuses access to its public records. See News and Sun-Sentinel Co. v. Palm Beach County, 517 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). An unjustified delay in complying with a public records request amounts to an unlawful refusal under section 119.12(1), Florida Statutes. See, e.g., Brunson v. Dade County School Board, 525 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
Application of section 119.12(1) and the relevant case law leads to but one conclusion here, that the appellant was entitled to recovery of attorney’s fees and costs. The evidence clearly establishes that it was only after the appellant filed a lawsuit that the documents he had previously sought by written request to the Town were finally turned over to him. Indeed, many of the documents were only turned over after the appellant sought entry of a temporary injunction and a show cause order was directed to the Town. The Town’s defense, that the delay in production of the records was caused by either the intentional wrongdoing or ineptitude of its Town clerk, amounts to an unlawful refusal and is not a valid basis for denying recovery of attorney’s fees and costs under section 119.12(1), Florida Statutes. The Town’s failure to turn over the documents was not lawful and the appellant is entitled to recovery of his attorney’s fees and costs.
We find no merit in the appellant’s contention that he was erroneously denied discovery by the trial court in light of the extensive interrogation afforded him at the evidentiary hearing held on August 30, 1994, in connection with his motion for temporary injunction.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs.
GRIFFIN, J., concurs in result.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Weeks v. Golden, 764 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…quested to appellant. An unjustified failure to respond to a public records request until after an action has been commenced to compel compliance amounts to an unlawful refusal for purposes of section 119.12(1). E.g., Barfield v. Town of Eatonville, 675 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Wisner v. City of Tampa Police Department, 601 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Brunson v. Dade County School Board, 525 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Accordingly, on remand the trial court shall determine whether the State Attor…
-
Mazer v. Orange Cnty., 811 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…ecame moot but plaintiffs motion for attorney’s fees, which is ancillary to the underlying action, was not moot), appeal denied, 185 Ill.2d 622, 242 Ill.Dec. 136, 720 N.E. 2d 1091 (1999). We find that our decision in Barfield v. Town of Eatonville, 675 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), is analogous to the instant case. In Barfield, the plaintiff brought an action pursuant to the public records laws, Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. The plaintiff appealed an order denying his motion for attorney’s fees pursuant t…
-
Grapski v. City OF Alachua, 31 So. 3d 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…fter their approval. This unjustifiable delay and closed procedure, say appellants, is tantamount to denying their request for the Minutes altogether and constitutes an unlawful refusal to comply with chapter 119. See Barfield v. Town of Eatonville, 675 So. 2d 223, 224 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (stating that “[a]n unjustified delay in complying with a public records request amounts to an unlawful refusal”). Unquestionably, the City’s Minutes are a “public record.” That term in Florida law broadly includes any docu…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The NEW York Times Co. v. PHH Mental Health Servs., Inc., 616 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1993)
- News & Sun-Sentinel Co. v. Palm Beach Cnty., 517 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Hamman v. Worling, 525 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)