Samantha Helfrich, individually and etc. v. City of Jacksonville and the Board of etc., 204 So. 3d 39

Helfrich worked for the City of Jacksonville >5 years and contributed about $15,666 to the City’s defined-benefit retirement plan; the City also makes employer contributions to preserve actuarial soundness.
Under the Plan, employees who leave before age 65 may either (1) vest for deferred retirement by leaving their contributions in the fund or (2) rescind vested rights and receive a refund; the Plan requires the election be made on a prescribed form.
Helfrich did not complete the prescribed election form; she told the Board she wanted a refund that included both her contributions and the City’s contributions.
The Board informed her she was entitled only to her personal payroll contributions, not the City’s contributions. Helfrich sued for a declaratory judgment that the term “contributions” in the Plan includes both employee and employer contributions.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, finding Helfrich had not made the required election and thus her request for declaratory relief was an advisory opinion lacking a justiciable controversy; the court entered final judgment for the City. Helfrich appealed; the appellate court addressed only the jurisdictional issue as dispositive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to decide Helfrich’s declaratory-judgment claim despite her failure to make the prescribed election	Helfrich sought a declaration that “contributions” includes both employee and City contributions to inform her choice; thus a present controversy exists	City argued Helfrich failed to invoke a present, justiciable controversy because she did not make the election required to trigger a refund right, so the request is advisory	Court held Helfrich’s claim was hypothetical/advisory because she had not made the election; no justiciable controversy existed, so the trial court lacked jurisdiction and the complaint must be dismissed with prejudice

Bryant v. Gray, 70 So.2d 581 (Fla. 1954) (declaratory relief improper where plaintiff sought guidance to decide speculative future action)
Apthorp v. Detzner, 162 So.3d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (no justiciable controversy where plaintiff failed to allege present facts showing likely immediate injury)
Okaloosa Island Leasholders Ass’n v. Okaloosa Island Auth., 308 So.2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (declaratory-judgment jurisdiction requires a bona fide dispute as to present issue)
Polk Cty. v. Sofka, 702 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 1997) (courts must observe limits of authority and avoid issuing advisory opinions)
Fla. Bar v. Greene, 926 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 2006) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)