Emerald Coast Utilities Authority v. Bear Marcus Pointe, LLC a Florida limited etc.
227 So. 3d 752
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Trial court entered an order assessing attorneys’ fees against Emerald Coast Utilities Authority (appellant) on March 18, 2014; the clerk e‑served the order by email on March 20, 2014 to counsel’s designated addresses.
- Appellant’s counsel (Odom & Barlow) did not receive the order in time and missed the appeal deadline; appellant moved under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b) to vacate and reenter the fee order so it could file a timely appeal.
- Clerk’s e‑service logs showed successful transmission/handshake to Odom & Barlow’s mail server with no bounce or error messages; IT consultants for the clerk and other experts concluded delivery to the recipient server likely occurred.
- Odom & Barlow’s internal IT evidence showed the firm intentionally configured its spam filter to silently delete suspected spam and had no logging or backups; the firm rejected consultant recommendations to change the configuration or add backups.
- Trial court found the firm’s deliberate, cost‑saving email setup and failure to monitor the court docket amounted to self‑created or gross neglect and denied relief; the district court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion by denying Rule 1.540(b) relief to vacate/reenter the fee order due to nonreceipt of e‑service | Appellant: Did not receive the emailed order; nonreceipt excuses failure to appeal and constitutes excusable neglect | Appellee: Clerk properly served the order; any failure to receive was due to counsel’s email setup and failure to monitor the docket, not court error | Denied relief; court held appellant failed to prove excusable neglect or other 1.540(b) grounds because nonreceipt was caused by counsel’s deliberate deficient systems and inaction |
| Whether electronic delivery to counsel’s mail server constitutes effective service | Appellant: Equitable relief warranted if counsel never saw the order | Appellee: Delivery to counsel’s server (successful handshake) is equivalent to placing mail in mailbox; service effective | Court treated successful delivery to recipient server as proper service; burden on counsel to maintain systems to receive such service |
| Whether counsel’s silent spam‑deletion configuration can support excusable neglect | Appellant: Technical filtering caused nondelivery beyond counsel’s control | Appellee: Firm chose that configuration despite warnings; risk was self‑created | Court found conscious decision to use defective system is not excusable neglect |
| Whether failure to monitor court docket excuses missing an appealable order | Appellant: Relied on electronic service alone | Appellee: Counsel had duty to check docket or adopt safeguards | Court held counsel’s failure to monitor docket and lack of procedures was inexcusable; diligence required |
Key Cases Cited
- Pompi v. City of Jacksonville, 872 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (excusable neglect where court staff error contributed to counsel’s mistake)
- Hollifield v. Renew & Co., Inc., 18 So. 3d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (limits on 1.540(b) relief where neglect occurred entirely within counsel’s office)
- Handel v. Nevel, 147 So. 3d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (standards for relief under rule 1.540(b))
- John Crescent, Inc. v. Schwartz, 382 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (diligence required; excusable neglect not lightly found)
- Brivis Enters., Inc. v. Von Plinski, 8 So. 3d 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (gross neglect is not excusable)
- Hornblower v. Cobb, 932 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (counsel’s lack of procedures undermines excusable‑neglect claim)
- Bequer v. Nat’l City Bank, 46 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (defective internal system is not a system gone awry supporting relief)