CURTIS W. LEE, APPELLANT,
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, JACKSONVILLE POLICE & FIRE PENSION FUND, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed denial of attorney's fees under the Public Records Act, holding that when an agency clearly qualifies as such, any refusal to disclose public records triggers fee liability without requiring proof of knowing, willful, or malicious intent.
When an entity is clearly an agency under chapter 119, Florida Statutes, its refusal to permit inspection or copying of public records automatically constitutes unlawful refusal warranting attorney's fees without requiring proof of knowing, willful, or malicious intent.
[1] When an entity clearly qualifies as an agency under chapter 119, Florida Statutes, its refusal to permit inspection or copying of public records constitutes unlawful refu…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“refusal by an entity that is clearly an agency within the meaning of chapter 119 will always constitute unlawful refusal.”
The court cited the Florida Supreme Court's observation in PHH Mental Health Services to establish that agency status being clear eliminates any intent requirement for fee awards.
Curtis W. Lee sought public records from the Board of Trustees of the Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund, which refused to permit inspection or c…
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 Chapter 119 cases and more on FLexlaw
We reverse the order denying appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees. Section 119.12, Florida Statutes (2009), authorizes an award of fees when an agency has “refused to permit a public record to be inspected or copied” in violation of chapter 119. Although fees are not warranted when the entity in charge of the public records at issue was reasonably and understandably unsure of its status as an agency, New York Times Co. v. PHH Mental Health Services, Inc., 616 So.2d 27 (Fla.1993), there is no comparable requirement when agency status is not in doubt, nor has there been since the 1984 amendment of section 119.12, when the legislature removed the necessity of showing that an agency “unreasonably” refused inspection of public records. See, e.g., Johnson v. Jarvis, 74 So.3d 168 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Weeks v. Golden, 764 So.2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Office of State Attorney for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Fla. v. Gonzalez, 953 So.2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Accordingly, the lower court erred as a matter of law by concluding that the agency had violated section 119.07 by refusing to disclose certain records, yet plaintiff was not entitled to attorney’s fees because the agency’s violation was neither knowing, willful, nor done with malicious intent. As the supreme court observed in PHH, “refusal by an entity that is clearly an agency within the meaning of chapter 119 will always constitute unlawful refusal.” PHH, 616 So.2d at 29.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PADOVANO, CLARK, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bd. OF Trs. v. LEE, 189 So. 3d 120 (Fla. 2016)…cords Act after the trial court determines in a civil action that the public agency violated the Public Records Act in failing to permit a public record to be inspected or copied. In Lee v. Board of Trustees, Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund, 113 So. 3d 1010, 1010 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), the First District Court of Appeal concluded that attorney’s fees should have been awarded after a finding that the public agency imposed conditions that were in violation of the Public Records Act, even though the “agency…
-
Lilker v. Suwannee Valley Transit Auth. & Gwendolyn Pra, 133 So. 3d 654 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…ority’s failure to furnish the records before Mr. Lilker filed suit was not an unlawful and willful refusal to comply with chapter 119. In so ruling, the court imposed a “willfulness” requirement not found in the statute, see Lee v. Bd. of Trustees, 113 So. 3d 1010, 1010 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), and did not definitively state whether it otherwise found a violation of the law. The proper question before the court on Mr. Lilker’s request for attorney’s fees and costs under section 119.12 was whether the Authority un…
Authorities Cited
- Weeks v. Golden, 764 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- The NEW York Times Co. v. PHH Mental Health Servs., Inc., 616 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1993)
- Off. of the State Attorney for the Thirteenth Jud. Cir. of Fla. v. Gonzalez, 953 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- L.J. Johnson v. Robert L. "Skip" Jarvis, Jr., 74 So. 3d 168 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)