Board of Trustees, Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund, etc. v. Curtis W. Lee
189 So. 3d 120
Fla.2016Background
- Curtis W. Lee requested public records from the Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund; the Fund imposed conditions (hourly photocopying and supervisory fees) Lee refused to accept.
- Lee sued for declaratory relief under the Public Records Act; the trial court found the two conditions violated section 119.07 and entered judgment for Lee on the merits.
- Lee sought statutory attorney’s fees under section 119.12; the trial court denied fees because the Fund’s violations were not "knowing, willful, or malicious."
- The First District reversed, holding fees are available when an agency unlawfully refuses disclosure regardless of bad faith; the Supreme Court granted review to resolve district court conflict.
- The Florida Supreme Court held that under section 119.12 a prevailing party is entitled to attorney’s fees when the court finds an agency unlawfully refused inspection or copying; no separate bad-faith or unreasonableness requirement is necessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prevailing requester is entitled to statutory attorney’s fees under §119.12 when a court finds an agency "unlawfully refused" disclosure | Lee: §119.12 requires fees once court finds an unlawful refusal; no extra bad-faith or reasonableness element | Pension Fund: §119.12 must be read with §119.07(c) (good-faith duty); fees should require agency bad faith or unreasonableness | Held for Lee: fees are mandatory upon a judicial finding of unlawful refusal; no additional good-faith/bad-faith requirement imposed |
| Whether the 1984 amendment replacing "unreasonably refused" with "unlawfully refused" changed the standard to eliminate reasonableness inquiry | Lee: amendment shows Legislature intended to focus on unlawfulness, not agency motive | Pension Fund: statutory scheme shows a general good-faith obligation that should inform §119.12 | Held: the 1984 change removed the reasonableness requirement; statutory context shows Legislature omitted good-faith language intentionally |
| Whether prior case law (PHH) creates a good-faith exception when agency status or compliance is uncertain | Lee: PHH is consistent—only precludes fees where it was reasonable to doubt agency status, not where an agency clearly violated the Act | Pension Fund: PHH supports requiring a good-faith exception in fee awards | Held: PHH limited to cases where entity’s agency status was genuinely uncertain; it does not create a general good-faith defense to §119.12 fee awards |
| Whether importing a good-faith requirement is appropriate based on other provisions (in pari materia) | Lee: other good-faith provisions exist elsewhere; omission in §119.12 indicates Legislature did not intend to require good faith for fees | Pension Fund: statutes read together show duty of good faith, so fees should attach only to unlawful refusals despite bad faith | Held: in pari materia reading does not supply a good-faith precondition to fees; §119.12’s plain language controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. Bd. of Trs., Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund, 113 So.3d 1010 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (district court decision awarding fees where court found unlawful conditions)
- Office of State Att’y v. Gonzalez, 953 So.2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (Second District holding no good-faith exception to §119.12)
- New York Times Co. v. PHH Mental Health Servs., Inc., 616 So.2d 27 (Fla. 1993) (Supreme Court: fees not appropriate where private entity reasonably doubted its agency status; clarifies scope of §119.12)
- Althouse v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 92 So.3d 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (Fourth District requiring showing of bad faith or unreasonableness for fee awards)
- Greater Orlando Aviation Auth. v. Nejame, 4 So.3d 41 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (Fifth District holding fees require agency acted unreasonably or in bad faith)
- Knight Ridder, Inc. v. Dade Aviation Consultants, 808 So.2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (Third District requiring reasonable or good-faith belief to deny fees)