STEWART LILKER, APPELLANT,
v.
SUWANNEE VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND GWENDOLYN PRA, ADMINISTRATOR, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE SUWANNEE VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY'S CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS, 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.
Stewart Lilker sought to compel the Suwannee Valley Transit Authority to produce public records and requested attorney's fees under Florida Statutes § 119.12. The trial court ordered production of the records but denied attorney's fees based on a 'willfulness' requirement not found in the statute. The appellate court reversed, holding that the proper standard is whether the Authority unlawfully refused or unjustifiably delayed production, and remanded for the trial court to apply the correct legal standard.
The trial court erred by imposing a 'willfulness' requirement not found in the statute. The proper standard under § 119.12 is whether the Authority unlawfully refused to produce records, which includes unjustified delay. The court must determine whether any delay was legally justified under the facts of the particular case.
[1] A statutory claim for attorney's fees and costs under public records law requires a determination of whether the public agency unlawfully refused to produce records, not…
[2] Unlawful refusal to produce public records includes unjustified delay in providing them.
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“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 unlawfully refused to produce records, not whether any such refusal was willful.”
Establishes that willfulness is not a statutory requirement for attorney's fees under § 119.12
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLilker requested public records from the Suwannee Valley Transit Authority a few months before filing suit. The Authority admitted the records were su…
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 Willful Refusal To Comply cases and more on FLexlaw
Stewart Lilker filed suit to compel the Suwannee Valley Transit Authority and its records custodian (collectively “the Authority”) to provide public records he had requested a few months earlier. The Authority admitted that the records were subject to disclosure, and after an eviden-tiary hearing, the court ordered the Authority to provide them to Mr. Lilker within forty-eight hours. The court declined, however, to award Mr. Lilker his attorney’s fees and costs under section 119.12, Florida Statutes (2012), because it determined that the Authority’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 unlawfully refused to produce records, not whether any such refusal was willful. See Lee, 113 So.3d at 1010.
Unlawful refusal under section 119.12 includes not only affirmative refusal to produce records, but also unjustified delay in producing them. Office of State Attorney for Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Fla. v. Gonzalez, 953 So.2d 759, 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Where delay is at issue, as here, the court must determine whether the delay was justified under the facts of the particular case. See Johnson v. Jarvis, 74 So.3d 168, 170-71 (Fla. 1st DCA *6562011). If not, the delay constitutes unlawful refusal. See id.; cf. Weeks v. Golden, 764 So.2d 633, 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (reversing a trial court’s determination that certain records were exempt and directing the court to determine on remand whether the agency had “any legally acceptable excuse for failing to respond to [the] appellant’s public records request until after he had filed his petition seeking to compel compliance”).
In its oral pronouncement, the trial court noted an “obvious and clear conflict” in the testimony and evidence regarding the reason for the Authority’s failure to produce the records before Mr. Lilker filed suit, but it did not resolve this conflict. Under one view of the evidence, the Authority’s inaction was justified by Mr. Lilker’s own representations and therefore not unlawful. Under another view, the delay was not legally justified. Because the trial court did not apply the proper legal standard, it failed to make sufficient findings to indicate to us whether the Authority’s failure to produce the records constituted an unlawful refusal. As a result, we reverse and remand for the trial court to weigh the pertinent evidence and apply the proper legal standard to its resulting findings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
THOMAS, RAY, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sabir Abdul-Haqq Yasir v. Forman, 149 So. 3d 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…refused to permit a public record to be inspected or copied[.]” “Unlawful refusal under section 119.12 includes not only affirmative refusal to produce records, but also unjustified delay in producing them.” Lilker v. Suwannee Valley Transit Auth., 133 So. 3d 654, 655-56 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); see also Office of State Attorney for Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Fla. v. Gonzalez, 953 So. 2d 759, 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Barfield v. Town of Eatonville, 675 So. 2d 223, 224 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Brunson v. Dade Cnty…
-
Citizens Awareness Found., Inc. v. Wantman Grp., Inc., 195 So. 3d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…nlawful refusal under section 119.12- includes not only affirmative refusal to produce records, but also unjustified delay in producing them.” Yasir v. Forman, 149 So. 3d 107, 108 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (quoting Lilker v. Suwannee Valley Transit Auth., 133 So. 3d 654, 655-56 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)). “Where delay is at issue, as here, the court must determine whether the delay was justified under the facts of the particular ease.” Lilker, 133 So. 3d at 655. ' It is only an “[ujnjustified delay in making nonexempt pu…
-
Siegmeister v. Johnson, 240 So. 3d 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Weeks v. Golden, 764 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- 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)
- LEE v. Bd. of Trs., 113 So. 3d 1010 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)