FANE LOZMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH, A MUNICIPALITY IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND CITY ATTORNEY PAM RYAN, 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.
The court held that a public agency is not required to furnish subsequent public records requests if prior fees remain unpaid, and mandamus is not the proper remedy to compel such action.
[1] A writ of mandamus may not be used to establish a right, but only to enforce a right that is clearly and certainly established in law.
[2] A public agency may condition the release of subsequent public records on the payment of outstanding fees for previously requested records.
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 intelligenceLozman requested public records and was given a cost estimate. He refused to pay the estimated charges, and the city subsequently refused to provide f…
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 Public Records cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Lozman appeals the denial of his petition for writ of mandamus seeking access to public records. We affirm.
Lozman made a public records request for copies of transcripts of meetings taking place over two years, and emails and letters between numerous people over a three year period. The city compiled the copies of the records and informed Loz-man that the charges would be $233.50.
Lozman refused to pay the charges and was not given the documents. He then attempted to order other documents, but was told that he had to pay the bill for the first group before the city would make any further documents available.
Lozman then filed a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus, contending that the city was violating the public records statute by refusing to furnish him additional public records until he paid for the first copies he had ordered. Lozman did not question the amount of the charges, or whether the city was authorized to charge, recognizing that section 119.07(4)(d) authorizes the charging of a fee for inspecting records as well as for copying them. The only issue he raised was whether the city could require him to pay the past due fees before complying with his subsequent requests.
Lozman acknowledges that in Board of County Commissioners of Highlands County v. Colby, 976 So. 2d 31, 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), the court noted that a “policy of requiring an advance deposit seems prudent given legislature’s determination that taxpayers should not shoulder the entire expense of responding to an extensive request for public records.” He argues, however, that the city must formally adopt a policy of requiring an advance deposit.
Because section 119.07(4) does not require the City to do any more than what it did in this case, Lozman was not entitled to a writ of mandamus. Fla. League of Cities v. Smith, 607 So. 2d 397, 400-401 (Fla.1992) (“Mandamus may not be used to establish the existence of such a right, but only to enforce a right already clearly and certainly established in the law.”). Affirmed.
POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP, 221 So. 3d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…expense of responding to an extensive request for public records. Col [*1264] by, 976 So. 2d at 37. A person who has not paid for the cost of production is not entitled to mandamus relief on a public records request. Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 995 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). In the present case, which deals with a dispute over a large public records request, the lower court seemingly failed to appreciate the amount of time required to properly prepare the requested documents, especially given the n…
-
Smith v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…ial court ordered the State to respond. The State informed the trial court that it had "banned [Mr. Smith] from making public records requests because he failed to pay for previous records he requested." Relying on Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 995 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), the State claimed that "an agency may refuse to produce additional records if the fees from a previous request for records have not been paid by the requestor." The trial court denied Mr. Smith's petition, citing section 119.07…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Fla. League OF Cities v. Smith, 607 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1992)
- The Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Highlands Cnty. v. Colby, 976 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)