Apthorp v. Detzner
2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 2461
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Apthorp challenges Florida's qualified blind trust statute ( §112.31425 ) as violating Article II, §8 of the Florida Constitution by limiting disclosure of assets within blind trusts.
- Sunshine Amendment Article II, §8 sets full and public disclosure requirements, including asset identification and values, subject to law changes.
- Legislature enacted §112.31425 in 2013 (effective 2018) allowing qualified blind trusts and requiring only lump-sum disclosure of trust assets.
- Proceedings began May 14, 2014 with an emergency petition for mandamus; the court transferred the case to circuit court and Apthorp later sought declaratory relief.
- At the hearing, no public officer or candidate used a qualified blind trust, leaving no concrete factual controversy; the trial court nevertheless ruled in favor of constitutionality.
- Appellate court held there is no justiciable controversy and vacated the declaratory judgment, dismissing with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a justiciable controversy supporting declaratory relief | Apthorp asserts a live controversy exists due to potential future application of §112.31425. | Detzner contends there is no actual injury or present dispute since no officer used a qualified blind trust. | No justiciable controversy; declaratory judgment dismissed |
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to declare the statute unconstitutional | Apthorp argues the statute creates a judicial question even without current use. | Defendant argues lack of present injury and hypothetical facts prevent jurisdiction. | Lacked jurisdiction; vacated judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Scanlan, 582 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 1991) (sets standard for pleading bona fide, present controversy)
- Santa Rosa County v. Admin. Comm’n, Div. of Admin. Hearings, 661 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 1995) (declaratory relief requires concrete, not hypothetical, state of facts)
- City of Hollywood v. Petrosino, 864 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (declaratory relief requires concrete dispute; advisory opinions disfavored)
- Fla. Consumer Action Network, 830 So.2d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (declaratory judgments must address actual controversy, not speculation)
- McKenna v. Camino Real Village Ass’n, Inc., 8 So.3d 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (corrects lower court's jurisdictional overreach in declaratory actions)
- In re Coleman’s Estate, 103 So.2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958) (declaratory relief not available for mere legal questions without live controversy)