115 So. 3d 1123
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Baker represents a class of individuals against Baptist Hospital, alleging hospital liens were filed in Escambia County for care provided in Santa Rosa County after Oct. 21, 2006 under a Florida statute.
- Baker contends Baptist’s lien practice was not authorized by the Escambia County special law and constitutes unfair or deceptive trade practices under FDUTPA.
- The trial court granted summary judgment: liens in Escambia were not authorized by the special law and directed removal of liens, but held filing liens did not constitute trade or commerce subject to FDUTPA.
- Baker appeals; Baptist cross-appeals on the FDUTPA issue, while the trial court’s other determinations stood.
- The court ultimately holds that pursuing legal remedies, such as filing a lien, is not trade or commerce and thus not within FDUTPA’s scope.
- The opinion affirms the trial court’s order and notes related federal authority does not control the result here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDUTPA applicability to hospital liens | Baker argues FDUTPA applies to lien practice as unfair trade practice. | Baptist contends liens are not a FDUTPA “trade or commerce” activity. | FDUTPA not applicable; liens are not trade or commerce. |
| Whether filing a hospital lien falls within 'trade or commerce' | Lien constitutes a debt-collection activity within commercial relation. | Lien filing is a legal remedy, not direct debt collection in commerce. | Filing a hospital lien is pursuing a legal remedy, not 'trade or commerce'. |
| Classification of the lien filing under lending/collection context | Lien could be viewed as debt collection related to medical services. | Lien is distinct from typical debt collection; statutory remedy used to secure payment. | Lien filing is not per FDUTPA debt collection. |
Key Cases Cited
- State, Office of Atty. Gen. v. Shapiro & Fishman, LLP, 59 So.3d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (legal remedies pursuit not trade or commerce for FDUTPA)
- Kelly v. Palmer, Reifler, & Assocs., P.A., 681 F.Supp.2d 1356 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (pre-suit demand letters linked to legal remedies not FDUTPA trade)
- Trent v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 618 F.Supp.2d 1356 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (mortgage lender not engaged in FDUTPA during pre-suit conduct/foreclosure)
- Schauer v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 819 So.2d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (debt-collection activity may be outside FDUTPA when tied to credit extended)
- Dade County Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638 (Fla. 1999) (proper result may be sustained for the right reason; rationale need not be perfect)