1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THEFLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULESOF PROCEDURE CASE NO.:

OUT-OF-CYCLE REPORT OF THEFAMILY LAW RULES COMMITTEE

Charles C. Jeffries, Chair of the Family Law Rules Committee (“Committee”), and John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director of The Florida Bar, respectfully file this Out-of-Cycle Report of the Family Law Rules Committee under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.140. All of the rule and form amendments have been approved by the full Committee and, as required by Rule 2.140(b)(3), voted on by The Florida Bar Board of Governors. (See Appendix A.)

The proposed amendments to the rules and forms are found in Appendix B (full-page format) and Appendix C (two-column format). In order to preserve the unique formatting required for the footers of the Family Law Forms, the Committee has placed the page numbering for Appendix B in the upper right corner of the Appendix. The rule and form amendments were published in The Florida Bar News on two separate occasions (see Appendix E) and comments were considered and addressed.

In order to explain the necessity of these proposed amendments, the Committee offers the following brief history of the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure.

For many years, family law proceedings were governed by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. This concept seemed particularly logical after Florida became a “no fault” divorce state. The perception was that despite the emotional issues coming before the courts, dissolutions of marriage should be treated similarly to the breakup of a corporation or partnership. Over the years, the whole concept of “family law” has grown from simply being “divorce court” into a now distinct court—one that has to constantly find ways to handle a growing number of issues that arise in twenty-first century families, such as paternity proceedings, disputes over time-sharing and visitation, domestic violence, and enforcement proceedings.

Filing # 42342594 E-Filed 06/06/2016 10:16:14 AMR

EC

EIV

ED

, 06/

06/2

016

10:1

8:30

AM

, Cle

rk, S

upre

me

Cou

rt

2

The Commission of Family Courts, created in 1990, has recommended “that the Supreme Court require each judicial circuit to submit to the court for approval a local rule establishing a family division in its circuit or a means to coordinate family law matters that affect one family if the circuit or part of the circuit is of such limited size that it is unable to administratively justify such a division.” In Re: Report of the Commission on Family Courts, 588 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1991).

As society went through radical changes, various areas of government developed to assist families, creating an evolution such that the practice of what had simply been “family law,” which seemed to fit under the umbrella of the Civil Rules of Procedure, developed into the practice of marital and family law. This practice is now represented in The Florida Bar by its own section and in the Judiciary by each Circuit’s Family Law Division.

The creation of the Family Law Rules of Procedure began on April 29, 1992, when the Family Law Section (“Section”) of The Florida Bar petitioned the Supreme Court to establish a separate set of Family Law Rules of Procedure. The Supreme Court’s opinion in In re: Report of the Commission on Family Courts, 588 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1991), determined that Family Divisions, or a means to coordinate family law cases, should be established in all circuits. The Section believed that this action recognized the fact that family law cases were different from civil matters and, therefore, that a separate set of rules to govern family law matters was appropriate. The Section also pointed out that the Civil Procedure Rules Committee had a limited number of family law practitioners and that it would be more appropriate to have family law practitioners developing family law rules.

In In re: Florida Rules of Family Court Procedure, 607 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1992), the Court authorized the development of separate family law rules and amended Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.130(b)(3) (Procedure for Amending Rules; Amendments Generally) to include the Family Law Rules Committee. The Court requested that The Florida Bar appoint the Committee and that an initial set of rules be submitted to the Court by September 1, 1993. Id. The Court also requested that “[t]o avoid confusion among members of the Bar who practice in both family law and other civil areas, [the Family Law Rules Committee] maintain as much uniformity as possible between [the] proposed Family Law Rules and the Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id.

The original Family Law Rules Committee was appointed at the end of 1992 and began an 18-month long series of monthly meetings on January 14, 1992.

3

Following review by the Board of Governors and publication for comment, the original report was submitted to the Court on September 12, 1994. The Supreme Court issued its opinion on July 7, 1995. See In re: Family Law Rules of Procedure, 663 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 1995). The Committee’s proposal incorporated the Civil Rules into the Family Law Rules, with technical and substantive changes, and included rules unique to family law proceedings. The Court amended the rules to incorporate references to the Rules of Civil Procedure. One of the concerns was the possibility of confusing general practitioners regarding what differences existed between the civil rules and the family law rules and which of these differences were substantive and not merely stylistic.

This 1995 opinion contained rules unique to family law proceedings. Rule 12.285, for example, required mandatory disclosure of documents and information at the beginning of a family law case. Rule 12.407 was also adopted and provided restrictions on children attending or testifying in court proceedings. The Court also incorporated the Florida Supreme Court Approved Simplified Family Law Forms in the set of Family Law Rules of Procedure.

In 1998, recognizing that maintaining the forms under the rule amendment provisions of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.140 would be too cumbersome and time-consuming for a single entity, the Court divided responsibility for maintenance of the forms between the Committee and the Office of the State Courts Administrator (“OSCA”). See Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure and Family Law Forms, 810 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2000); Rule 12.015.

Over the years, the rules and forms have been amended numerous times in order to address issues that could or had come up in family law proceedings. Some of the more significant amendments include the creation of:

1. Rule 12.363, Evaluation of a Minor Child;

2. a rule and forms governing limited appearance attorneys;

3. rules and forms regarding parenting coordination;

4. rules and forms regarding relocation of a minor child;

5. Rule 12.615, Civil Contempt in Support Matters; and

6. Rule 12.750, Family Self-Help Programs.

4

Despite the existence of this separate set of family rules, family practitioners have encountered difficulties when civil rule amendments were applied automatically to family law cases. For example, Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525, which governs time requirements for serving a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, was adopted in 2000. The rule automatically applied to family law practitioners, but many practitioners were unaware of its requirements. The result was that family law attorneys were denied attorneys’ fees and costs for failure to file a request within the specified time. See, e.g., Mook v. Mook, 873 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). The Family Law Rules were subsequently amended in 2005 to provide that rule 1.525 did not apply in family law proceedings. See Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure (Rule 12.525), 897 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 2005).

The rule-making process has become increasingly difficult for family law practitioners who have long been dissatisfied with being limited by the constraints of the Rules of Civil Procedure—rules that are often inadequate for the unique needs of family law proceedings. The civil rules that do address family law cases have become fewer as time has passed.

Given this history and the development of the Family Law Rules, it became apparent to the Committee that prudency necessitates having the Family Law Rules separate from the Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, the Committee observed that a growing number of self-represented litigants were participating in family law proceedings and noticed how onerous it was for these litigants to navigate through three different rules sets: the civil rules, the family rules, and the Rules of Judicial Administration. The Committee believes that a set of Family Law Rules that is not contained under the umbrella of the Rules of Civil Procedure will assist both practitioners and self-represented litigants in understanding the proper procedural avenues to follow in their family law proceedings.

In order to accomplish this goal, the Committee created a subcommittee in 2012 to review the existing Family Law Rules and their corresponding civil rules to amend the Family Law Rules so they may stand on their own. The Committee believes that the rules as set forth in this report reflect the specific needs of family law practitioners, take into consideration the bafflement of self-represented litigants dealing with multiple sets of rules in order to gain access to the family court system, and are consistent with the Supreme Court principle of ensuring “that the court system manages its cases in a manner that will best resolve the issues facing families and children who come before the courts.” In Re: Amendments to

5

the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration; In Re: Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, 132 So. 3d 1114 (Fla. 2014).

The Committee has been mindful during the review process to not amend a rule for the mere sake of revision, but to tailor the rules to the practice of family law, which is often uniquely different from other areas of practice. In addition, the Committee has also been cognizant of unnecessary revisions so as to ensure that case law on existing rules will remain applicable. Further, the Committee has incorporated recent changes to the Rules of Judicial Administration so that these proposed rule amendments are consistent with those rules of general applicability. The Committee has also taken self-represented litigants into consideration by utilizing simplified language where appropriate.

For the Court’s convenience, the Committee has included a unique Appendix D that provides a visual representation of how the proposed rules have been amended from both the existing Family Law Rules and existing Rules of Civil Procedure.

In Appendix D, text denoted by:

1. double-underline is brand new language added;

2. double-strikethrough is language from the existing Rules of Civil Procedure that was not incorporated in the proposed amendments to the Family Rules;

3. single-underline is language incorporated from the existing Rules of Civil Procedure; and

4. single-strikethrough is language from the existing Family Law Rules that was removed for the purposes of the proposed amendments.

The rule and form amendments were published in the August 1, 2015, edition of The Florida Bar News. (See Appendix E–1 – E–26.) Comments were received from Attorney Conrad Knutson, Attorneys Cynthia Swanson and Tee Lee, Attorney Monica Medina, the Department of Revenue, General Magistrate Susan Roux Keith, and the Family Law Section. (See Appendix F.) Five of the six comments raised issues relating to specific rules. Those comments are discussed in greater detail within the specific rule and form proposals.

6

The comment received from attorney Monica Medina contained general statements of concern. Ms. Medina had “grave concerns that the proposed changes...will constrict access to the courts.” Appendix F–10. She opined that the elimination of references to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure would effectively “blind the eyes of pro se litigants, or attorneys who typically practice in other area [sic] of the law.” Id. Lastly, Ms. Medina opined that changing the use of the term “shall” has the effect of diluting the seriousness of the rules and whatever action was contemplated by the rule. Id.

The comment received from General Magistrate Susan Roux Keith included one general statement regarding the fact that some of the existing Family Law Rules are not being submitted with amendments and continue to utilize the word “shall.” General Magistrate Keith suggested that the amendments “should be consistent throughout with the word usage.” Appendix F–12. In addition, General Magistrate Keith commented on the Committee’s proposed deletion of Rule 12.611 (Central Governmental Depository) by pointing out that even though the “State Disbursement Unit has largely replaced the Central Government Depository, chapter 61.181 of the Florida Statutes still references the creation of a depository separate from the State Disbursement Unit.” Appendix F–16.

The comment received from the Department of Revenue (“DOR”) also raised issue with the proposed deletion of Rule 12.611. In its comment, the DOR pointed out that “local depositories are not obsolete and still retain a role in processing support payments not required to be made through the [State Disbursement Unit].” Appendix F–4. The DOR went on to explain that the “operation of a central depository for each county is required by [section] 61.181, [Florida Statutes]” and that the depositories participate in the State Disbursement Unit system by approving “daily disbursements of support,” supporting “over-the-counter and purge payments,” and maintaining “the ‘Clerk of Court Child Support Collection System.’” Id.

The Committee deemed that no further amendments were necessary to the proposed rules based on Ms. Medina’s comments. The Committee recognizes differing opinions exist regarding the potential effect of these proposed amendments, but believes these amendments are necessary to assist practitioners and self-represented litigants. Additionally, the Committee notes that when amending the term “shall” throughout these proposed rules, it is following the guidance of In Re: Guidelines for Rules Submissions, AOSC06-14 (“Court’s Style Guide”), specifically Part I, subdivision (a)(6).

7

In response to General Magistrate Keith’s general observation, the Committee notes that it did not include amendments to any rules falling outside the scope of the Committee’s goal and intent for this report. The Committee will address the language of the rules mentioned in General Magistrate Keith’s comment whenever each of them is substantively amended in the future.

As to the comments regarding Rule 12.611, the Committee agreed with both General Magistrate Keith’s and the DOR’s observations and chose to rescind the proposed deletion of Rule 12.611. As such, the rule is not included in this report.

After careful consideration of the comments addressing specific rules, the Committee made further revisions to the proposed amendments. The rules that were amended in response to the comments received were then republished in the October 15, 2015, edition of The Florida Bar News. (See Appendix E–27 – E–28.) No additional comments were received in response to the second publication of the proposed rule amendments.

Thus, the Committee respectfully submits these proposed rule and form amendments for this Court’s consideration for the following reasons and in the following ways:

RULE 12.005. TRANSITION RULE

The proposed amendment to this rule removes the language “effective January 1, 1996.” In its place, the Committee has set off a space for a new effective date in anticipation of the Court amending the rules and forms outlined in this report. Additionally, the Committee removed archaic language in conformity with the Style Guide.

RULE 12.010. SCOPE, PURPOSE, AND TITLE

The proposed amendment to subdivision (a)(2) replaces the reference to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure with a reference to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. Additionally, the term “special statutory” was considered unnecessary and has been deleted from the first sentence of subdivision (a)(2). Lastly, the Committee proposes removing archaic language in conformity with the Court’s Style Guide by replacing “governed by” with “under” and “shall govern” with “applies.”

RULE 12.015. FAMILY LAW FORMS

8

The proposed amendment to the opening paragraph of subdivision (a) replaces the abbreviated reference to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration with a completely spelled out reference. Additionally, the term “shall” is replaced with the term “may” in the second sentence of the opening paragraph of the subdivision.

Subdivision (a)(11) is amended to add “(Long Form)” to properly reflect the title of Form 12.902(c). Subdivision (a)(12) is amended to add “Notice of Filing” before “Child Support Guidelines Worksheet” to properly reflect the title of Form 12.902(e). Subdivision (a)(15) is amended to add newly created Form 12.911(a), Subpoena for Hearing or Trial (Issued by Clerk).

New subdivisions (a)(16)–(a)(19) identify and list newly created Forms 12.911(b)–(e). Form 12.913(b), Affidavit of Diligent Search and Inquiry, is given new subdivision number (a)(20). Existing subdivisions (a)(16)–(a)(23) are renumbered to allow for the inclusion of the new forms. New subdivision (a)(29) identifies newly created Form 12.930(d), Notice of Service of Answers to Standard Family Law Interrogatories. Existing subdivision (a)(24) is renumbered to subdivision (a)(30). New subdivision (a)(31) identifies newly created Form 12.975, Notice of Compliance When Constitutional Challenge is Brought.

Existing subdivision (a)(25) is renumbered to subdivision (a)(32). Additionally, the title of Form 12.984 is amended to properly identify the newly amended title of the form. Specifically, the title of Form 12.984 is amended to read “12.984(a), Order of Referral to Parenting Coordinator.” Additionally, the existing title of Form 12.984 has been assigned to new Form 12.984(b) at new subdivision (a)(33). Specifically, new subdivision (a)(33) as amended would read as “12.984(b), Response by Parenting Coordinator.” New subdivisions (a)(34)–(a)(35) identify new Forms 12.984(c) and 12.984(d). Existing subdivision (a)(26) is renumbered to subdivision (a)(36).

Existing subdivision (a)(27) is renumbered to subdivision (a)(37). Additionally, the subdivision is amended to add “(Non-Title IV-D Case)” to properly reflect the title of Form 12.996(a). Existing subdivisions (a)(28)–(a)(30) are renumbered to subdivisions (a)(38)–(a)(40). Existing subdivision (a)(31) is deleted since this Form has been transferred to new subdivision (a)(32) and retitled as Form 12.984(a), Order of Referral to Parenting Coordinator. New subdivision (a)(41) identifies the creation of Form 12.999, Final Disposition Form.

9

RULE 12.020. APPLICABILITY OF FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDUREDEFINITIONS

The proposed amendments to this rule fall directly in line with the Committee’s goal to allow the Family Law Rules to stand on their own. The Committee proposes amending the title of the rule by replacing the old title, “Applicability of Florida Rules of Civil Procedure,” with a new title, “Definitions.” Additionally, the proposed amendments delete the entirety of the existing rule language and replace it with a single sentence that provides direction to practitioners and self-represented litigants on how to find the definitions of family law terms used in these rules.

The Committee believes that the amendments to the language of the rule will provide a single location for practitioners and self-represented litigants to look for the correct terminology. Specifically, the new language directs users of the rule to “refer to the Family Law Glossary of Common Terms and Definitions contained in the General Information for Self-Represented Litigants located at www.flcourts.org.”

In its comment, the Family Law Section expressed concern about “turning to an authority outside of the Florida approved Rules for definitions of important terms.” Appendix F–6. The Section opined that “[a]llowing definitions to be created outside of the context of the Rules changes the scrutiny under-which [sic] such definitions should be viewed before being adopted or altered.” Id. The Section also expressed concern that the website reference could be misleading if the location of the glossary on the website were to change. The Section proposed that the definitions be set forth specifically within the rules.

Though the Committee appreciates the concern raised by the Section, the Committee believes that no further amendments are needed to this rule. The Committee notes that a general website was used in the proposed rule so that there is less likelihood that the website will need to be amended. The Committee also points out that the Family Law Glossary is currently maintained by the Supreme Court so it falls outside of the rule-making procedure.

RULE 12.030. NONVERIFICATION OF PLEADINGS

The proposed amendment to this rule replaces the reference to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.030, regarding the nonverification of pleadings, with a general reference to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration or applicable statute. In combining the existing language of Civil Rule 1.030 with the existing language of

10

Rule 12.030, the Committee made some minor language amendments to make the rule read more fluidly. These proposed amendments would make the rule read:

Except as otherwise provided in these rules, verification of pleadings shall be governed by the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration or applicable statute.

RULE 12.050. WHEN ACTION COMMENCED

The proposed amendment to this rule removes the existing sentence referring to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.050. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.050, regarding when actions are deemed commenced, with minor changes to nomenclature. Specifically, the Committee proposes replacing the phrase “action of a civil nature” with the phrase “family law matter” and removing the phrase “complaint or.” These changes conform the rule more specifically to the practice of family law.

RULE 12.060. TRANSFERS OF ACTIONS

The proposed amendment to this rule removes the existing sentence referring to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.060. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.060, regarding the transfers of actions, with minor changes to simplify terminology.

Specifically, the Committee proposes amending subdivisions (a) and (b) to replace the reference to Rule 1.170(j) with the phrase “by Florida law.” Additionally, the terms “laying” and “laid” are replaced with the terms “placing” and “placed,” respectively. Lastly, archaic language is replaced to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

In their comment, Attorneys Cynthia Swanson and Tee Lee, pointed out that an incorrect cross-reference to Rule 12.070(j) existed since no such subdivision existed in the proposed Rule 12.070. To address this issue, the Committee made the changes described above. The comment also addressed concern with the use of the verb “place” when discussing venue, since standard practice is to use the verb “lay.” The Committee, however, made this change with self-represented litigants in mind and believes the amendment simplifies the language for those litigants. As such, the Committee chose to leave the proposed amendments in place.

RULE 12.070. PROCESS

11

The Committee proposes substantial amendments to this rule. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

The title of subdivision (a) is deleted and replaced with the title “Issuance of Summons.” The language of existing subdivision (a) is deleted in its entirety. The language of existing Rule 1.070(a) is incorporated in new subdivision (a)(1), which is titled “In General.” The incorporated language of existing Rule 1.070 is modified to remove archaic language in conformity with the Court’s Style Guide. Additionally, new language is added to include the commencement of “proceedings to modify a final judgment.” The amendments would make new subdivision (a)(1) read:

(1) In General. On the commencement of the action, including proceedings to modify a final judgment, summons or other process authorized by law must be issued immediately by the clerk or judge under the clerk’s or the judge’s signature and the seal of the court and delivered for service.

Existing subdivision (b) is renumbered as subdivision (a)(2). The title of the subdivision is amended to read “Contents of Summons.” Additionally, the language “, cross-claim summons, and third party summons” is deleted. The proposed amendments to the subdivision cause the language of the subdivision to be inclusive of “all” summons, so the Committee believes it is unnecessary to list different types of summons.

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule 1.070(b), regarding who may make service, with minor changes. Specifically, the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must” or “will,” as appropriate. The term “defendant” is replaced with the term “respondent” to properly utilize the nomenclature used in family law proceedings.

Existing subdivision (c) is amended to incorporate the language of Rule 1.070(c), regarding the procedure for serving numerous respondents, with the minor changes of updating terminology to reflect the nomenclature used in family law proceedings. Specifically, the term “defendant” is replaced with the term “respondent” and the term “plaintiff” is replaced with the term “petitioner.” The term “shall” is also replaced with the term “must.”

New subdivision (d) incorporates the language of Rule 1.070(d), regarding service of process by publication.

12

The language in existing subdivision (c) is renumbered under new subdivision (e). Subdivisions (e)(1) and (e)(2) are amended to remove archaic language to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

Existing subdivision (d) is renumbered as subdivision (f).

New subdivision (g) incorporates the language of Rule 1.070(e), regarding providing copies of initial pleadings at the time of service, with minor changes removing archaic language. Specifically, the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must” and the term “upon” is replaced with the term “on.”

New subdivision (h) incorporates the language of Rule 1.070(f), regarding the service of orders, with the minor change of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must.”

New subdivision (i) incorporates the language of Rule 1.070(g), regarding the fees associated with the service of pleadings.

New subdivision (j) incorporates the language of Rule 1.070(h), regarding pleading the basis for service when made under statutes authorizing service on nonresidents of Florida.

New subdivision (k) incorporates the language of Rule 1.070(i), regarding the service of process by mail, with minor changes. Those changes include updating terminology to appropriately include the nomenclature utilized in family law proceedings and removing archaic language to conform to the Style Guide. Specifically, the term “defendant” is replaced with the term “respondent,” the term “complaint” is replaced with the term “petition,” the term “plaintiff” is replaced with the term “petitioner,” the term “thereby” is removed, and the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must,” “will,” or “may,” as appropriate.

New subdivision (l) incorporates the language of Rule 1.070(j), regarding the time limit under which service must be made, with minor changes. Specifically, the proposed amendments replace the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(1) with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.420(a)(1). Additionally, to update terminology to appropriately include the nomenclature utilized in family law proceedings, the term “defendant” is replaced with the term “respondent,” the term “complaint” is replaced with the term “petition,” and the term “plaintiff” is replaced with the term “petitioner.” Lastly, to conform to the Court’s Style Guide, the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must.”

13

In her comment, General Magistrate Susan Roux Keith pointed out a grammatical error in the sixth line of subdivision (l) that the Committee has corrected.

RULE 12.071. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO STATE STATUTE OF COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL CHARTER, ORDINANCE, OR FRANCHISE; NOTICE BY PARTY

The proposed amendment to this rule removes the existing sentence referring to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.071. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.071, regarding the procedure for a constitutional challenge to a state statute or county or municipal charter, ordinance, or franchise, with the minor change of replacing the term “paper” with the term “document” in response to the institution of e-filing and e-service requirements.

RULE 12.080. SERVICE OF PLEADINGS

The proposed amendments to this existing Family Law Rule make changes to cross-references. Specifically, subdivision (a)(2) is amended to replace the phrase “Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure” with the term “rule.” Subdivision (c)(1) is amended to replace a cross-reference to “Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070” with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.070. To conform to the Court’s Style Guide, archaic language is removed by replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” and the phrase “shall be” with the term “is.” Additionally, a grammatical correction is made to the second sentence of the Committee Note, adding an “s” to the end of the term “Subdivision.”

RULE 12.090. TIME

The proposed amendment to this rule removes the existing sentence referring to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(b)–(d). In place of this sentence, the language of Rule 1.090 is incorporated with some modifications. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

The existing language of Rule 12.090 is newly identified as subdivision (a) and titled “Computation.” The sentence that references Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(b)–(d) is deleted. These amendments will make Rule 12.090(a) reflect the language of Rule 1.090(a).

14

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule 1.090(b) with the minor change of replacing the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) with a cross-reference to Family Law Rule 12.540(b). Additionally, to conform to the Style Guide, archaic language is removed by deleting the term “therefor” and replacing the term “upon” with the term “on.” Lastly, grammatical changes have been made for ease of reading.

New subdivision (c) incorporates the language of Rule 1.090(d) with the minor change of removing archaic language to conform to the Style Guide. Specifically, the Committee proposes replacing the term “therefor” with the phrase “on the written motion” and replacing the term “shall” with the term “must.”

Existing subdivision (c) of Rule 1.090 is not incorporated since terms of court were statutorily removed by Chapter 2013-25, Laws of Florida.

RULE 12.100. PLEADINGS; AND MOTIONS; AND CAPTIONS

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the language of the existing rule in its entirety. In its place, proposed Rule 12.100 incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.100, regarding pleadings and motions, with various modifications. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

The title of the rule is amended to add “and Captions” to indicate that this rule provides guidance on how to properly caption pleadings and motions.

New subdivision (a) incorporates the language of Rule 1.100(a), regarding pleadings, with changes to nomenclature and to conform the rule more specifically to the practice of family law. Nomenclature amendments include replacing the term “petition” with the term “complaint,” adding the phrase “a response or” to reflect the use of the term in family law proceedings, and deleting the phrase “or third party answer” as inapplicable. Immediately before the final sentence of the subdivision, the Committee proposes adding new language detailing that a supplemental petition and response or answer and a counter-supplemental petition and answer or response may apply in a post-judgment case. Additionally, the Committee proposes adding a sentence that informs practitioners that the Rules of Civil Procedure apply to cases which contain a related civil action not specifically addressed in the Family Law Rules. Lastly, the Committee proposes amending the final sentence of the subdivision so that “[n]o other pleadings are allowed unless otherwise provided by law.”

15

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.100(b), regarding motions, with the minor change of removing archaic language to conform to the Court’s Style Guide. The term “shall” is replaced with the term “must” throughout the subdivision.

New subdivision (c)(1) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.100(c)(1), regarding the inclusion of a caption, with minor changes. To conform to the Court’s Style Guide, the Committee proposes replacing the term “shall” with the term “must.” Additionally, in response to the institution of e-filing and e-service requirements, the term “paper” is replaced with the term “document.” References to forfeiture proceedings are deleted as they are inapplicable to family law proceedings.

New subdivisions (c)(1)(A)–(c)(1)(I) are added to provide guidance on specific captions for family law cases. Significant thought was given to the creation of a new section setting forth the appropriate captions for various family law actions. The reasons for creating standardized captions are several, but the goal is to create a standardized manner of captioning actions, whether in an original proceeding or a post-judgment proceeding. These captions were created with input from Committee members, members of the judiciary, clerk personnel, and Department of Revenue personnel with the intent to create uniformity and provide a clear template for practitioners, self-represented litigants, members of the judiciary, and court personnel to utilize.

New subdivision (c)(2) is added to provide guidance on the proper use of trial level nomenclature in the caption. The first sentence directs practitioners to use “simple, clear, constant, and...unchanging” nomenclature regardless of who files. The second sentence of the subdivision informs practitioners that the nomenclature is meant to identify the parties by role. In drafting the second sentence, the Committee recognizes the ongoing efforts of the Section to establish nomenclature more appropriate for same sex marriages, but hesitates to offer alternate terminology until the Section concludes its project. The last sentence of the new subdivision directs practitioners to include information regarding the filer within the document and not in the caption.

New subdivision (c)(3) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.100(c)(2), regarding cover sheets, with minor changes. The first sentence is amended to remove the term “civil” and add the phrase “for family court cases” so that the sentence refers to a “cover sheet for family court cases.” The reference to Form 1.997, Civil Cover Sheet, is replaced with a reference to Family Form

16

12.928, Cover Sheet for Family Court Cases. The term “civil” is deleted from the last sentence of the subdivision. Lastly, to conform to the Court’s Style Guide, the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must.”

New subdivision (c)(4) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.100(c)(3), regarding final disposition forms, with minor changes. Specifically, in the first sentence, the reference to Form 1.998, Final Disposition Form, is replaced with a reference to Family Form 12.999, Final Disposition Form. Additionally, the phrase “by the prevailing party” is deleted since there is no “prevailing party” in family law proceedings. In the second sentence, a second reference to Form 1.998 is deleted as redundant. In the last sentence, the reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e) is replaced with a reference to Family Rule 12.420(d). Lastly, archaic language is removed in conformity with the Style Guide. In particular, the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must” and the phrase “pursuant to” is replaced with the term “under.”

New subdivision (d) is added to instruct practitioners that Family Form 12.900(h), Notice of Related Cases, must be filed in conformity with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.545(d). The language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.100(d), regarding motions in lieu of scire facias, was not incorporated since these motions are inapplicable in family law proceedings.

Four of the comments received addressed certain aspects of the proposed amendments to this rule. Those comments came from the Section, the Department of Revenue, Attorneys Cynthia Swanson and Tee Lee, and General Magistrate Susan Roux Keith.

The Section commented generally on the rule in regard to nomenclature in light of the recent case, Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 192 L.Ed.2d 609 (2015), legalizing same sex marriages. The Section pointed out that the nomenclature used in the proposed rule “does not permit flexibility for a same-gender action” and that the requirement “that one party be called a[ ] ‘Husband’ and one party to be called a ‘Wife’ seems like an unnecessary language issue that will only have to be corrected later to conform to judicial reality.” Appendix F–7. The Section also commented that subdivision (c)(1)(I) “seems to prohibit a modification to the caption when a party changes his/her name in a divorce action.” Id. The Section opined that name changes are a regular occurrence and that flexibility should exist to update captions accordingly. Lastly, the Section noted a typographical error in subdivision (c)(4), and opined that the subdivision reversed the current rules, since existing Rule 12.100 “excepts the application of

17

Rule 1.100(e)(3) (Final Disposition Forms) from Family Law.” Id. The Section did not agree that there was “a need to add Final Disposition Forms to the already long list of necessary forms to properly process the dissolution of marriage.” Appendix F–8.

The comment from Attorneys Cynthia Swanson and Tee Lee made two points. The first, like the comment from the Section, spoke to the fact that the proposed amendments to the rule utilized the terms “husband” and “wife” instead of gender-neutral terms to address the allowance of same sex marriage in Florida. Second, the comment stated that there appeared to be a conflict in language between subdivision (d) and Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.545(d), since subdivision (d) “states that Notice of Related Cases must be filed in conformity with Rule 2.545(d),” but Rule 2.545(d) “only requires the filing of the Notice of Related Cases ‘if related cases are known or reasonably ascertainable.’” Appendix F–1.

The Department of Revenue’s (“DOR”) comment addressed three areas of concern. The first was in regard to the use of terminology that did not take into consideration the legalization of same sex marriages. The second issue discussed subdivision (c)(1)(D)(iii), regarding the caption for Paternity Modifications. The DOR felt that the title “Paternity Modification” is confusing. The DOR questioned how paternity can be modified and noted that “[a]lthough Section 742.18, [Florida Statutes], provides for paternity disestablishment, there are no provisions in statute or case law for paternity modification.” Appendix F–3. The final point raised was in regard to the caption included in subdivision (c)(1)(H). The DOR pointed out that the DOR “no longer refers to the Title IV-D Program as ‘Child Support Enforcement’ as referenced in the caption.” Id. The DOR suggested amending this caption to include the language “Child Support Program” to reflect the current terminology used by the Department “to better reflect that DOR’s mission and responsibilities extend beyond the enforcement of support to encompass establishment of paternity and/or support obligations, as well as modification and collection of support payments.”

General Magistrate Susan Roux Keith’s comment raised concerns with subdivisions (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4). In regards to subdivision (c)(2), General Magistrate Keith raised the same concern as the Section regarding the fact that the “former name of a party is restored in a dissolution of marriage action” and that the proposed subdivision “would require a party to continue filing pleadings and motions with a former name many years after entry of the original judgment.” Appendix F–13. As to subdivision (c)(3), General Magistrate Keith pointed out

18

that by incorporating the language of Civil Rule 1.100(c)(2), the subdivision no longer addressed the reopening of a case, as permitted in family law proceedings. Finally, in considering subdivision (c)(4), General Magistrate Keith raised a concern that the proposed language “does not indicate who is to file the disposition sheet unless the action is ‘settled without a court order or judgment being entered, or dismissed by the parties.’” Appendix F–14. General Magistrate Keith opined that the proposed language changes the existing rule, which provides “that ‘the requirement in rule 1.100(c)(3) that parties file a final disposition form with the clerk if the action is settled without a court order or judgment being entered or if the action is dismissed by the parties, shall not apply to proceedings governed by these rules.’”

In response to these comments, the Committee offers the following responses:

In regards to the use of nomenclature that does not take into account the recent legalization of same sex marriages, as raised by the DOR, the Section, and Attorneys Swanson and Lee, the Committee notes that changing terminology was heavily discussed. However, the Committee hesitated to offer its own interpretation of proper nomenclature prior to the nomenclature committee of the Family Law Section presenting its proposals or the legislature defining terminology that should be utilized in proceedings involving same sex marriage. As such, the Committee chose to propose amendments consistent with the existing Family Law Rules.

In response to the issues raised by the DOR regarding subdivision (c)(1)(D)(iii), the Committee chose to not make any further amendments based on the belief that the suggested amendments were unnecessary in light of the practice dealing with modifications of final judgments in paternity cases. As to the issues raised regarding subdivision (c)(1)(H), the Committee made the DOR’s suggested change in order to correctly reflect the terminology used by the Department of Revenue.

As to the Section’s and General Magistrate Keith’s issues with subdivisions (c)(1)(I) and (c)(2), regarding name changes in dissolution of marriage actions, the Committee appreciates the thoughtfulness of these comments but chose to make no further amendments. The Committee points out that the proposed amendments only require that the caption remain the same. The rule does not prevent a party that has changed names due to a divorce action from signing the pleadings with

19

that new name. The maintenance of the same name in the caption is meant to help the courts with the organization of supplemental pleadings.

The Committee agreed with General Magistrate’s comment regarding subdivision (c)(3) and further amended the subdivision by deleting the term “initial” in the first sentence. The Committee believes that this small adjustment fixes the issue raised by General Magistrate Keith and allows the filing of petitions to reopen cases.

As to the comments regarding subdivision (c)(4), the Committee made the editorial change recommended by the Section, to make the subdivision read more clearly. In regards to the issue of requiring the filing of a final disposition form, the Committee believes that adding new Form 12.999, Final Disposition Form, addresses the concerns of General Magistrate Keith.

Lastly, in response to the comment from Attorneys Swanson and Lee, regarding subdivision (d), the Committee points out that the language of the subdivision only states that a notice of related cases must be filed in conformity with Rule 2.545(d). It does not speak to when a notice of related cases must be filed, since that requirement is found in Rule 2.545(d). As such, the Committee determined that no further amendments were needed to the subdivision.

RULE 12.110. GENERAL RULES OF PLEADING

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing language in its entirety. In its place, the Committee proposes incorporating the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110 with minor changes. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the incorporated language in the following manner:

New subdivision (a) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(a), regarding the abolishment of forms of action and technical forms for seeking relief.

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(b), regarding claims for relief, with stylistic changes and minor language changes in nomenclature and archaic language. The long paragraph format in Rule 1.110(b) has been broken into its parts for easier reading. The term “claim” is replaced with “petition, counterpetition” in the second line and by “pleading” in subdivision (b)(1). The term “complaint” is replaced with the term “petition” in subdivision (b)(3). The term “shall” is replaced with the term “must” and the term “upon” is replaced with the term “on” in conformity with the Court’s Style Guide.

20

Lastly, subdivision (b)(2) is amended to add the phrase “both the relief requested and” so that claims for relief contain a statement containing the relief requested and the facts supporting entitlement to that relief.

New subdivision (c) is added to provide guidance on what information is to be included in a document when verification of a document is required. New subdivision (c)(1) provides the statement to be included when verification is done in an individual capacity (i.e. Family Law Financial Affidavit). New subdivision (c)(2) provides the statement to be included when verification is done in a representative capacity on behalf of a corporate entity.

New subdivision (d) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(c), regarding what an answer must include, with minor changes to simplify language and update nomenclature. In particular, the term “averments” has been replaced with the term “allegations,” the term “defenses” has been replaced with the term “answers,” and the term “shall” has been replaced with the term “must.” Minor grammatical amendments were made to provide for easier reading of the subdivision.

New subdivision (e) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(d), regarding affirmative defenses, with changes to cross-references and some language. Specifically, the references to Rules of Civil Procedure 1.140(b) and 1.190 are replaced with references to Family Rules 12.140 and 12.190, respectively. Additionally, the list of specific affirmative defenses listed in Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(d) is replaced with a general statement of “or any other affirmative defense as allowed by law” since many of the defenses listed are inapplicable to family law proceedings. Archaic language is also replaced in conformity with the Court’s Style Guide. The term “shall” is replaced with the term “must” and the phrase “set forth” is replaced with the term “state.”

New subdivision (f) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(e), regarding the effect of a failure to deny allegations, with minor changes to simplify language. The term “averments” is replaced with the term “allegations.” The phrase “amount of damages” is replaced with the phrase “the relief requested” for consistency with the language used in subdivision (b). The term “shall” is also replaced with the term “must.”

New subdivision (g) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(f), regarding separate statements, with minor changes in language. The term

21

“averments” is replaced with the term “allegations,” the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must,” and the term “defense” is replaced with the term “response.”

New subdivision (h) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(g), regarding joinder of causes of action, with the minor change of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” in the last sentence.

New subdivision (i) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(h), regarding subsequent pleadings, with minor changes. The phrase “complaint or” is deleted from the first and second sentences as language not utilized in family law cases. A new sentence is added immediately before the last sentence of the subdivision to provide that “[p]roceedings to modify a final judgment must be initiated only under this subdivision and not by motion.” Lastly, the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must” or “does,” where applicable.

RULE 12.120. PLEADING SPECIAL MATTERS

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.120. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.120, regarding pleading special matters, with minor changes to language and the addition of the qualifying statement “[u]nless required by statute” at the beginning of subdivision (a). Throughout the rule, the term “aver” and its derivatives are replaced with the term “allege” and its derivatives. The term “shall” is also replaced with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

RULE 12.140. DEFENSESRESPONSES

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.140 with minor changes. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

The title of the rule is amended to reflect the correct terminology used in family law proceedings.

New subdivision (a)(1) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(a)(1) with changes in nomenclature and simplification of language. In particular, the term “defendant” is replaced with the term “respondent,” the term “answer” is replaced with the term “response,” the term “plaintiff” is replaced with the term “petitioner,” and the term “claim” is replaced with the term “petition.”

22

The second sentence of Rule 1.140(a)(1) is moved to be the last sentence of proposed subdivision (a)(1). To conform to the Court’s Style Guide, the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must.”

Existing subdivisions (a)(2)(A)–(a)(2)(B) of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140 were not incorporated in these proposed amendments since section 768.28, Florida Statutes, does not apply to family law proceedings.

New subdivision (a)(2) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(a)(3), with the minor change of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must.”

New subdivision (a)(3) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(a)(4), with the minor change of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” and replacing the term “the” with the term “such” in the last line.

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(b), regarding how responses should be presented, with minor changes in nomenclature and the removal of archaic language. In particular, the term “defenses” is replaced with the term “responses” and the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must.”

New subdivision (c) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(c), regarding motioning for judgment on the pleadings.

New subdivision (d) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(d), regarding preliminary hearings, with minor changes. Language is updated to correctly reference internal subdivisions of the rule, such that the opening clause would read “The responses in subdivisions (b)(1)–(b)(7).” The term “defenses” is replaced with the term “responses” and the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must” or “will,” as appropriate. Lastly, the phrase “of this rule” is deleted as duplicative.

New subdivision (e) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(e), regarding motioning for a more definite statement, with the minor change of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” in conformity with the Court’s Style Guide.

New subdivision (f) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(f), regarding motioning to strike.

23

New subdivision (g) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(g), regarding the consolidation of responses, with minor changes in nomenclature. The term “defenses” is replaced with the term “responses,” including in the title of the subdivision. The phrase “of this rule” is also deleted as duplicative.

New subdivision (h) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(h), regarding the waiver of responses, with minor changes in nomenclature. The term “defenses” is replaced with the term “responses,” including in the title of the subdivision. The phrase “of this rule” is also deleted as duplicative.

RULE 12.150. SHAM PLEADINGS

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.150. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.150 with minor changes to remove archaic language. The term “thereof” is replaced with the phrase “of it” and the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must.” Additionally, the last sentence of subdivision (b) is deleted as inapplicable to family law proceedings.

RULE 12.160. MOTIONS

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.160. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.160 with language changes to simplify the reading of the rule. The following phrases and terms are deleted: “and applications in the clerk’s office,” “mesne,” “final process,” “as do,” and “motions and applications.” The deletion of these phrases and terms would make the subdivision read as:

All motions for the issuance of process and to enforce and execute judgments, for entering defaults, and for such other proceedings in the clerk’s office not requiring an order of court must be deemed grantable as of course by the clerk. The clerk’s action may be suspended, altered, or rescinded by the court upon good cause shown.

RULE 12.170. COUNTERCLAIMSPETITIONS AND CROSSCLAIMS

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.170. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.170 with mostly nomenclature and archaic

24

language changes. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

The title of the rule is amended to reflect the correct terminology used in family law proceedings.

New subdivision (a) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.170(a), regarding compulsory counterpetitions, with the minor changes of replacing the term “counterclaim” with the term “counterpetition,” where appropriate, to reflect the appropriate nomenclature used in family law proceedings and replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.170(b), regarding permissive counterpetitions, with the minor change of replacing the term “counterclaim” with the term “counterpetition” to reflect the appropriate nomenclature used in family law proceedings.

New subdivision (c) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.170(c), regarding counterclaims exceeding the opposing claim.

New subdivision (d) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.170(d), regarding counterclaims against the state, with the minor change of replacing the term “thereof” with the phrase “of the state” to remove archaic language.

New subdivision (e) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.170(e), regarding a counterclaim maturing or being acquired after the pleading, with the minor change of replacing the term “counterclaim” with the term “counterpetition.”

New subdivision (f) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.170(f), regarding omitted counterclaims or crossclaims, with the minor addition of the phrase “or equity” for use in family law proceedings.

New subdivision (g) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.170(g), regarding crossclaims against co-parties, with minor changes. In particular, archaic language is removed by replacing the term “therein” with the phrase “within the original action,” the term “shall” with the term “must,” and the phrase “pursuant to” with the term “under.” Additionally, the cross-reference to

25

Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080(b) in the second to last sentence is replaced with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.080.

New subdivision (h) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.170(h), regarding when additional parties may be brought in, with changes in terminology and replacement of a cross-reference. In particular, the term “counterclaim” is replaced with the term “counterpetition” and the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must” or “will,” as appropriate. The cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.250 in the last sentence is replaced with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.250.

New subdivision (i) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.170(i), regarding separate judgments when separate trials are ordered by the court, with the minor change of deleting the phrase “as provided in rule 1.270(b).”

Existing Rule of Civil Procedure 1.170(j), regarding the transfer of actions when the demands of a counterclaim or crossclaim exceed the jurisdiction of the court, is not incorporated in proposed Family Rule 1.170 since this is an issue that is inapplicable in family law proceedings.

RULE 12.180. THIRD-PARTY PRACTICE

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.180. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.180, with changes to nomenclature and cross-references. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

New subdivision (a) incorporates the language of the first five sentences of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.170(a), regarding the availability of third-party practice, with changes to nomenclature and cross-references. In particular, the term “defendant” is replaced with the term “respondent,” the term “complaint” is replaced with the term “petition,” and the term “plaintiff” is replaced with the term “petitioner” to more appropriately reflect the nomenclature used in family law proceedings. Additionally, the cross-references in the fourth sentence to Rules of Civil Procedure 1.110, 1.140, and 1.170 are replaced with cross-references to Family Rules 12.110, 12.140, and 12.170, respectively. Archaic language is also removed by replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” and deleting the phrase “herein called.”

26

New subdivision (b) creates a new subdivision title, “Additional Claims,” and incorporates the language of the final four sentences of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.170(a), with changes to nomenclature and cross-references. In particular, the term “defendant” is replaced with the term “respondent,” the term “complaint” is replaced with the term “petition,” and the term “plaintiff” is replaced with the term “petitioner” to more appropriately reflect the nomenclature used in family law proceedings. Additionally, the cross-references in the second sentence to Rules of Civil Procedure 1.110, 1.140, and 1.170 are replaced with cross-references to Family Rules 12.110, 12.140, and 12.170, respectively. Archaic language is also removed by replacing the phrase “thereupon shall” with the term “must.”

New subdivision (c) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.170(b), regarding when a petitioner may bring in a third party, with minor changes to nomenclature to replace the terms “plaintiff,” “claim,” and “defendant” with the terms “petitioner,” “petition,” and “respondent,” respectively.

RULE 12.190. AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.190, with some changes. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

The title of the rule is amended to delete the term “supplemental” to reflect that this rule only applies to amended pleadings in family law cases.

New subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) incorporate the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a), (b), and (c), with the minor change of removing archaic language in conformity with the Court’s Style Guide by replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” or “will,” as appropriate.

The Committee proposes not incorporating Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(d), regarding supplemental pleadings because the term “supplemental,” as used in civil matters, has a different connotation than when used in family law matters. In family law proceedings, a supplemental pleading denotes a pleading that initiates an action after the entry of a Final Judgment has been entered, thus reopening the case and requesting relief or modification from the Final Judgment. In civil matters, however, the term is used to refer to an additional pleading. Due to the differing definitions, including a subdivision regarding “supplemental” pleadings would serve to provide more confusion than guidance.

27

New subdivision (d) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(e) with only a single grammatical amendment, replacing the term “which” with the term “that.”

The Committee proposes not incorporating Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(f), regarding claims for punitive damages, because punitive damages are inapplicable in family law proceedings. The Committee believes that if a case has any punitive damage components, then those damages will arise from a civil component which can be bifurcated.

RULE 12.201. COMPLEX LITIGATION

The Committee proposes deleting this rule in its entirety. The only reason for the rule’s current existence is to ensure that practitioners understand that Rule of Civil Procedure 1.201, regarding complex litigation, does not apply to family law proceedings, since Rule 1.201 was intended to address managing such cases as tobacco litigation and other complex, multi-party litigation.

RULE 12.210. PARTIES

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.210. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.210, with some changes. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

New subdivision (a) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.210(a), regarding who may be considered a party, with some changes to make the subdivision more directly applicable to family law proceedings. The second sentence is amended to replace the language “and in obtaining the relief demanded may join as plaintiffs and any person may be made a defendant who has or claims an interest adverse to the plaintiff” with the language “may be joined.” With this amendment, the sentence would read “All persons having an interest in any subject of the action may be joined.” The Committee also proposes deleting the last sentence of Rule 1.210(a) and replacing it with a new sentence that reads “Any person may at any time be made a party if that person’s presence is necessary or proper for a complete determination of the cause.” These amendments address parties of interest and necessary parties in the context of family law proceedings.

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.210(b), regarding minors or incompetent persons, with some changes to address incapacitated persons, adjust terminology to reflect the verbiage used in family law

28

proceedings, and to provide that the court has discretion to appoint a guardian ad litem. In particular, the term “incapacitated” is added throughout the subdivision to create a list that reads “minor, incapacitated, or incompetent person,” including in the title of the subdivision. Additionally, references to “sue” or “defend” are replaced with the term “appear” to more appropriately follow the terminology used in family law proceedings. Lastly, the third sentence is amended to replace the language “appoint a guardian ad litem” with the language “have the discretion to appoint a guardian ad litem and/or attorney ad litem.”

New subdivision (c) is created to address the unique circumstances of a minor child in family law proceedings. While a minor child would be considered an “indispensable party” under the civil rules, in the context of a family law proceeding, a minor child is not a party, even though many issues that may be litigated provide relief to a minor child. The language of the subdivision reflects the exception language used in existing Rule 12.210.

RULE 12.230. INTERVENTIONS

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.230. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.230, with the minor change of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

RULE 12.240. INTERPLEADER

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.240. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.240, with minor changes in nomenclature and terminology. In particular, the term “plaintiff” is replaced with the term “petitioner,” the term defendant” is replaced with the term “party,” and the term “claim” is replaced with the term “petition” to reflect the nomenclature used in family law proceedings. Additionally, in the second sentence, the phrase “that the plaintiff avers” is replaced with the phrase “it is alleged” to update nomenclature and simplify language.

RULE 12.250. MISJOINDER AND NONJOINDER OF PARTIES

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.250. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.250, with minor changes. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

29

The title of the rule is amended to remove the phrase “and nonjoinder” since nonjoinder is not applicable in family law proceedings.

Subdivision (a) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.250(a).

Subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.250(b) with the minor change of replacing the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(1) with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.420(a)(1). Additionally, to conform to the Court’s Style Guide, the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must.”

Subdivision (c) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.250(c) with the minor change of replacing the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a) with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.190(a).

RULE 12.260. SURVIVOR; SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.260. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.260 with some changes to make the rule more directly applicable to family law proceedings. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

Subdivision (a)(1) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.260(a)(1) with some changes. The last sentence of Rule 1.260(a)(1), regarding dismissal of the action if a motion for substitution is not made within 90 days, is replaced with a new sentence that reads: “If a party dies while a proceeding is pending and that party’s rights survive, the court may order the substitution of the proper party on its own motion or that of any interested person.” Additionally, the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080 in the second sentence is replaced with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.080. Lastly, the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must” and the term “upon” is replaced with the term “on” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

Subdivision (a)(2) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.260(a)(2) with minor changes in nomenclature and simplifying language. In particular, the term “plaintiffs” is replaced with the term “petitioners,” the term “defendants” is replaced with the term “respondents,” the term “shall” is replaced with the term “does,” and the term “upon” is replaced with the term “on.”

30

Subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.260(b) with changes. In particular, the title of the subdivision is amended to replace “Incompetency” with “Incapacity.” Within the body of the subdivision, the term “incompetent” is replaced with the term “incapacitated.” Additionally, the language “, upon motion served as provided in subdivision (a) of this rule,” is deleted. With these amendments, the subdivision would read:

(b) Incapacity. If a party becomes incapacitated, the court may allow the action to be continued by or against that party’s representative.

Subdivision (c) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.260(c), regarding transfers of interest, with the minor changes of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” and deleting the phrase “of this rule” as duplicative.

Subdivision (d) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.260(d), regarding death or separation from office by public officers, with the minor change of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” or “does,” as appropriate.

In its comment, the Section raised an issue with the amendments to this rule. In particular, the Section believed that subdivision (b) should be amended to “recognize that a dissolution of marriage action may be abated or stayed if a party becomes incompetent.” Appendix F–8. The Section also suggested recognizing the statutory waiting period regarding incompetency so that “it is clear that this Rule does not alter or change the statutory law.” Id.

The Committee considered the Section’s comments and determined that this subdivision would be more appropriate to address incapacity. Thus, the Committee amended the rule to its current proposed version and believes that these additional amendments make the Section’s concerns regarding subdivision (b) moot.

RULE 12.270. RELATED CASES AND CONSOLIDATION; SEPARATE TRIALS

The proposed amendments to this rule retitle the rule and delete the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.270. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule creates a new sentence to direct practitioners that “[r]elated cases and consolidation of cases are governed by Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.545.” With the addition of this new sentence, the Committee believes there is no need to incorporate the language of Rule 1.270 within this rule.

31

RULE 12.280. GENERAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING DISCOVERY

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the opening statement referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280. In place of this sentence, the Committee proposes changes to incorporate the language of Rule 1.280 while also maintaining the exception language contained in existing Family Rule 12.280. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

Subdivision (a) is amended to incorporate the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(a), regarding discovery methods, with the minor changes of replacing cross-references and removing the duplicative phrase “of this rule.” In particular, in the second sentence, the cross-reference to subdivision (e) is replaced with a cross-reference to subdivision (d) and the cross-references to Rules of Civil Procedure 1.200, 1.340, and 1.370 are replaced with cross-references to Family Rules 12.200, 12.340, and 12.370, respectively.

Newly numbered subdivision (b) contains the language of existing Family Rule 12.280(a), regarding the redaction of personal information, with the minor change of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must.”

New subdivisions (c) and (c)(1) incorporate the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b) and 1.280(b)(1), respectively.

New subdivision (c)(2) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(2), regarding indemnity agreements, with the only change being the deletion of the last sentence of the subdivision. The Committee felt that this sentence is unnecessary since the admissibility of information concerning the indemnity agreement would be governed by the rules of evidence.

New subdivision (c)(3) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(3), regarding electronically stored information.

New subdivision (c)(4) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4), regarding materials used in preparation for trial, with changes to terminology and cross-references. In particular, the phrase “of this rule” is deleted as duplicative, the terms “shall” and “upon” are replaced with the terms “must” and “on,” respectively, to conform to the Court’s Style Guide, and the term “paragraph” is replaced with the term “subdivision.” The cross-references to subdivisions (b)(5) and (b)(1) and Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(a)(4) are replaced with cross-references to subdivisions (c)(5) and (c)(1) and Family Rule

32

12.380(a)(4), respectively. Lastly, the language “surety, indemnitor, insurer,” is deleted as these terms are not applicable in family law proceedings.

New subdivision (c)(5) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(5), regarding discovery of facts known and opinions held by experts, with the minor changes of replacing a cross-reference to (b)(1) with a cross-reference to subdivision (c)(1), deleting the phrase “of this rule” as duplicative, and deleting the term “only” as unnecessary.

New subdivision (c)(5)(A)(i) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(5)(A)(i).

New subdivision (c)(5)(A)(ii) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(5)(A)(ii) with the minor change of replacing a cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.390 with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.390.

New subdivision (c)(5)(A)(iii) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(5)(A)(iii) with the minor changes of renumbering subdivisions (c)(5)(A)(iii)(1)–(c)(5)(A)(iii)(4) as subdivision (c)(5)(A)(iii)(a)–(c)(5)(A)(iii)(d), replacing the terms “plaintiffs” and “defendants” with the terms “petitioners” and “respondents,” respectively, to update nomenclature, and replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

The final paragraph of subdivision (c)(5)(A) incorporates the language of the final paragraph of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(5)(A) with the minor changes of replacing the cross-reference to subdivision (b)(5)(C) with a cross-reference to subdivision (c)(5)(C), deleting the phrase “of this rule” as duplicative, and replacing the term “upon” and the phrase “pursuant to” with the terms “on” and “under,” respectively, to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

New subdivision (c)(5)(B) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(5)(B) with the minor changes of replacing the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360(b) with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.360(b) and replacing the term “upon” with the term “on” to simplify language.

New subdivision (c)(5)(C) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(5)(C) with the minor changes of replacing the cross-references to subdivisions (b)(5)(A) and (b)(5)(B) with cross-references to subdivisions (c)(5)(A) and (c)(5)(B), respectively, deleting the phrase “of this rule” as duplicative, and replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

33

New subdivision (c)(5)(D) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(5)(D) with the minor change of replacing the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.390(a) with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.390.

New subdivision (c)(6) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(6), regarding claims of privilege or protection of trial preparation materials, with the minor change of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

New subdivision (d) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c), regarding protective orders, with the minor changes of replacing the term “upon” with the term “on” to simplify language and replacing the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(a)(4) with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.380(a)(4).

New subdivision (e) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(d), regarding the limitations on discovery of electronically stored information, with the minor change of renumbering subdivisions (d)(2)(i)–(d)(2)(ii) as subdivisions (e)(2)(A)–(e)(2)(B).

New subdivision (f) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(e), regarding the sequence and timing of discovery, with the minor changes of replacing the cross-reference to subdivision (b)(5) with a cross-reference to subdivision (c)(5) and replacing the term “shall” with the term “does.”

Newly numbered subdivision (g) contains the language of existing Family Rule 12.280(b), regarding supplementing responses. Since language specific to family law proceedings already exists, the Committee believes that there is no need to incorporate the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(f).

Newly numbered subdivision (h) contains the language of existing Family Rule 12.280(c), regarding the time constraints for serving supplemental responses. The Committee proposes amending this subdivision to conform to the Style Guide by replacing the phrase “pursuant to” with the term “under” and the term “shall” with the term “must” or “may,” as appropriate.

Newly numbered subdivision (i) contains the language of existing Family Rule 12.280(d) with amendments. In particular, the Committee proposes replacing the title of the subdivision, “Documents Considered Confidential,” with a new title, “Confidentiality of Records.” Additionally, the Committee proposes adding a sentence to the end of the subdivision that reads: “Records found to be confidential

34

under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 must be sealed on request of a party.” This sentence is currently found in existing Family Rule 12.280(e). Lastly, the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must.”

Former subdivision (e), regarding the sealing of records, has been deleted as this language has been relocated to the end of newly numbered subdivision (i).

New subdivision (j) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(g), regarding court filing of documents and discovery, with the minor changes of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” and deleting the last two sentences of the subdivision since this language already appears in newly numbered subdivision (b).

In her comment, General Magistrate Susan Roux Keith pointed out that the Committee’s initially published version of the rule did not incorporate all of the language from Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4) into new subdivision 12.280(c)(4). The Committee recognized this as a clerical oversight and made the necessary corrections to incorporate the final four sentences of Rule 1.280(b)(4) into proposed Rule 12.280(c)(4).

RULE 12.281. INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE OF PRIVILEGED MATERIALS

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.285. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.285 with minor changes to conform to the Court’s Style Guide. In particular, the phrase “pursuant to” is replaced with the term “under” and the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must.”

RULE 12.285. MANDATORY DISCLOSURE

The proposed amendment to this rule replaces the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(f), in subdivision (a)(3)(C), with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.380. Additionally, the Committee proposes amending language to conform to the Court’s Style Guide. In particular, the term “shall” is either deleted or replaced with the term “must,” the phrase “shall be” is replaced with the term “are,” and the phrase “prior to” is replaced with the term “before” throughout the rule. Lastly, the term “relief” has been added to the title of subdivision (b)(1) and within the text of subdivision (b)(1)(B) to create consistency in terminology throughout the subdivision.

35

RULE 12.290. DEPOSITIONS BEFORE ACTION OR PENDING APPEAL

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.290. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.290 with stylistic, language, and cross-reference changes. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

New subdivision (a)(1) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.290(a)(1) with formatting changes to make the subdivision easier to read. Rule 1.290(a)(1) is written in the format of a single long paragraph. In order to make the proposed subdivision read easier, the Committee proposes breaking up the requirements of what is to be included in the petition into new subdivisions (a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B)(i)–(a)(1)(B)(v), and (a)(1)(C). Additionally, the Committee proposes language amendments within the text of these newly numbered subdivisions.

In newly numbered subdivision (a)(1)(A), the term “entitled” is replaced with the term “titled” as more appropriate for the context of the subdivision.

In newly numbered subdivision (a)(1)(B)(ii), the term “therein” is replaced with the phrase “in it.”

In newly numbered subdivision (a)(1)(B)(v), the term “which” is replaced with the term “that” to be more grammatically correct and the term “shall” is deleted.

New subdivision (a)(2) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.290(a)(2), regarding notice and service, with minor changes to conform to the Court’s Style Guide. In particular, the phrase “shall thereafter” is replaced with the term “must,” the term “upon” is replaced with the term “on,” and the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must” or “will,” as appropriate.

New subdivision (a)(3) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.290(a)(3), regarding order and examination, with minor changes to conform to the Court’s Style Guide. In particular, the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must,” the term “upon” is replaced with the term “on,” and the term “therein” is deleted.

36

New subdivision (a)(4) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.290(a)(4), regarding the use of deposition, with the minor change of replacing the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.330 with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.330.

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.290(b), regarding pending appeals, with the minor changes of replacing the terms “upon” and “shall” with the terms “on” and “must,” respectively.

New subdivision (c) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.290(c), regarding perpetuation by action.

RULE 12.300. PERSONS BEFORE WHOM DEPOSITIONS MAY BE TAKEN

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.300. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.300 with changes in language. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

New subdivision (a) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.300(a), regarding persons before whom depositions may be taken.

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.300(b), regarding depositions in foreign countries, with minor changes. In particular, the term “rogatory” is replaced with the phrase “of request” to simplify language and the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide. Additionally, the blank lines that appear in Rule 1.300(b) have been replaced with the 5-dot, parenthetical, 5-dot format described in the Court’s Style Guide.

New subdivision (c) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.300(c), regarding selection by stipulation.

New subdivision (d) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.300(d), regarding persons disqualified from depositions, with the minor change of replacing the term “shall” with the term “may.”

RULE 12.310. DEPOSITIONS UPON ORAL EXAMINATION

37

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.310 with changes to simplify language and update nomenclature. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending this rule in the following manner:

New subdivision (a) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(a) with minor changes. In particular, the terms “plaintiff” and “defendant” are replaced with the terms “petitioner” and “respondent,” respectively, to utilize nomenclature used in family law proceedings. Additionally, the phrase “of this rule” is deleted as duplicative. Lastly, the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.410 is replaced with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.410.

New subdivisions (b)(1)–(b)(3) incorporate the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(1)–(b)(3) with the minor changes of updating nomenclature by replacing the term “plaintiff” with the term “petitioner” and conforming to the Court’s Style Guide by replacing the term “shall” with the term “must.”

New subdivision (b)(4)(A) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(4)(A) with the minor change of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

New subdivision (b)(4)(B) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(4)(B) with changes to simplify language. In particular, the title of the subdivision replaces the term “stenographer” with the term “court reporter.” Additionally, the term “recorded” is deleted from immediately before the term “stenographically” and the phrase “recorded by a certified court reporter,” is added immediately after the same term. Lastly, the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide. These amendments would lead the subdivision to read:

(B) Court Reporter. Videotaped depositions must also be stenographically recorded by a certified court reporter, unless all parties agree otherwise.

New subdivision (b)(4)(C) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(4)(C) with the minor changes of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” and adding the term “in” within subdivision (b)(4)(C)(iii) to read more clearly.

38

New subdivisions (b)(4)(D)–(b)(4)(E) incorporate the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(4)(D)–(b)(4)(E) with the minor change of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” within subdivision (b)(4)(D) and deleting the term “shall” in subdivision (b)(4)(E) to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

New subdivision (b)(5) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(5) with the minor changes of replacing cross-references to Rules of Civil Procedure 1.350 and 1.351 with cross-references to Family Rules 12.350 and 12.351, respectively, and replacing the phrase “shall apply” with the term “applies.”

New subdivision (b)(6) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(6) with the minor change of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

New subdivision (b)(7) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(7).

New subdivision (b)(8) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(8) with changes. In particular, the phrase “shall have” is replaced with the term “has” and the term “upon” is replaced with the term “on” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide. Additionally, the list in the second line is modified to add that a guardian ad litem or attorney ad litem may accompany a minor subpoenaed for testimony. Lastly, a new sentence is added to the end of the subdivision to notify practitioners that this subdivision does not alter the requirements of Rule 12.407 regarding the requirement that a court order must be obtained before a minor child may be deposed or brought to a deposition.

New subdivision (c) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(c) with the minor changes of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide, deleting the phrase “of this rule” as duplicative, and replacing the term “upon,” at the end of the fifth sentence, with the term “during” to read more grammatically correct.

New subdivision (d) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(d) with the minor change of replacing cross-references to Rules of Civil Procedure 1.310(c), 1.280(c), and 1.380(a) with cross-references to subdivision (c) of this rule, Family Rule 12.280(d), and Family Rule 12.380(a)(4), respectively. Additionally, to conform to the Court’s Style Guide, the terms “upon,” “forthwith,” and “shall” are replaced with the terms “on,” “immediately,” and “must,” respectively.

39

New subdivision (e) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(e) with the minor changes of replacing the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.330(d)(4) with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.330(d)(4) and replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide. The term “therefor” is also deleted from the end of the fourth sentence for the same reason.

New subdivisions (f)(1)–(f)(2) incorporate the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(f)(1)–(f)(2) with the minor change of replacing the terms “shall” and “upon” with the terms “must” and “on,” respectively, to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

New subdivisions (f)(3)(A)–(f)(3)(B) incorporate the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(f)(3)(A)–(f)(3)(B) with the minor changes of replacing the cross-references to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(f) with cross-references to Family Rule 12.280(j) and replacing the term “shall” with the term “must.”

New subdivisions (g)–(h) incorporate the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(g)–(h) with the minor changes of replacing the terms “shall,” therewith,” and “upon” with the terms “must,” “with the deposition,” and “on,” respectively, to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

RULE 12.320. DEPOSITIONS UPON WRITTEN QUESTIONS

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.320. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.320 with changes. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

New subdivision (a) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.320(a), regarding the service and notice of questions, with formatting changes for easier reading and language changes to make the rule more applicable in family law proceedings. In particular, the fifth sentence, “A deposition upon written questions may be taken of a public or private corporation, a partnership or association, or a governmental agency in accordance with rule 1.310(b)(6),” is deleted as unnecessary in family law proceedings. Additionally, the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.410, in the second sentence, is replaced with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.410. Lastly, the terms “shall” and “upon” are replaced with the terms “must” and “on,” respectively.

40

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.320(b), regarding the responsibilities of the officer designated to take responses and prepare the record, with the minor changes of replacing the cross-references to Rules of Civil Procedure 1.310(c), (e), and (f) with cross-references to Family Rules 12.310(c), (e), and (f) and replacing the term “shall” with the term “must.”

RULE 12.330. USE OF DEPOSITIONS IN COURT PROCEEDINGS

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.330. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.330 with some changes to language and cross-references. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

New subdivision (a) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.330(a), regarding the use of depositions, with the minor change of replacing the term “upon” with the term “on.”

New subdivision (a)(1) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.330(a)(1).

New subdivision (a)(2) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.330(a)(2) with the single change of deleting the language: “or of anyone who at the time of taking the deposition was an officer, director, or managing agent or a person designated under rule 1.310(b)(6) or 1.320(a) to testify on behalf of a public or private corporation, a partnership or association, or a governmental agency that is a party.” The Committee believes this language is inapplicable to family law proceedings. After deletion of this language, the subdivision would read:

(2) The deposition of a party may be used by an adverse party for any purpose.

New subdivision (a)(3) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.330(a)(3) with a minor change of replacing the term “upon” with the term “on” in subdivision (a)(3)(E).

New subdivision (a)(4) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.330(a)(4).

The Committee proposes not incorporating the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.330(a)(5)–(a)(6). In regards to subdivision (a)(5), the Committee

41

believes this language is unnecessary as the remainder of the rule does not otherwise prohibit the use of depositions taken before the substitution of parties. As to subdivision (a)(6), the Committee believes the language regarding medical malpractice actions is inapplicable to family law proceedings.

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.330(b), regarding objections to admissibility, with the minor change of replacing the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.300(b) with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.300(b). Additionally, this cross-reference is relocated within the sentence to appear after the internal cross-reference to subdivision (d)(3).

New subdivision (c) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.330(c), regarding the effect of taking or using depositions, with the minor changes of replacing the term “shall” with the term “does” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide and deleting the phrase “of this rule” as duplicative.

New subdivision (d) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.330(d), regarding the effect of errors and irregularities, with the minor changes of replacing the term “upon” with the term “on” in subdivisions (d)(1) and (d)(3)(C) and replacing the cross-references to Rules of Civil Procedure 1.310 and 1.320, in subdivisions (d)(3)(C) and (d)(4), with cross-references to Family Rules 12.310 and 12.320, respectively.

RULE 12.340. INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing opening sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.340 with some changes. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

Existing subdivision (a) is amended to incorporate the language of the first six sentences of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340(a) with some changes. In particular, the title of the subdivision is amended to replace “Service of Interrogatories” with “Procedure for Use.” The numbering that appears in Rule 1.340(a) is deleted. The third and fifth sentences are deleted as unnecessary since these sentences refer to the civil allotment of 30 interrogatories, but the allotment of ten interrogatories for family law proceedings is discussed in subdivision (b). The terms “shall” and “upon” are replaced with the terms “must” and “on,” respectively, to conform to the Court’s Style Guide and the term “plaintiff” is replaced with the term “petitioner” to accurately depict nomenclature used in family law proceedings.

42

Existing subdivisions (a)(1)–(a)(2) are amended to delete the cross-references to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340. Additionally, the last sentence of each subdivision, regarding a party’s ability to serve fewer interrogatories than those set forth within the form, is deleted as repetitious since this language already appears in the opening paragraph of subdivision (a). The term “shall” is also replaced with the term “must.”

Existing subdivision (c) is amended to incorporate the last four sentences of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340(a) with some language changes. A new subdivision is created and is titled “Service of and Objections to Interrogatories.” The phrase “by the attorney making it” at the end of the first sentence is deleted as unnecessary since these rule amendments are being proposed with self-represented litigants in mind. The term “shall” is replaced with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide. The term “defendant” is replaced with the term “respondent” to accurately depict nomenclature used in family law proceedings. Lastly, the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(a) is replaced with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.380(a).

Newly numbered subdivision (d) contains the language of existing Family Rule 12.340(c) with the minor change of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

New subdivision (e) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340(b), regarding the scope and use at trial of interrogatories, with some changes. In particular, the proposed rule deletes the last sentence of Rule 1.340(b). The Committee believes this language is unnecessary since the admissibility would be governed by the rules of evidence. Additionally, the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b) is replaced with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.280(b) and the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must.”

New subdivision (f) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340(c), regarding the option to produce records, with changes to simplify language. In particular, the language “production of the records in lieu of a written response” is added to replace the exhaustive string of clauses contained in Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340(c). With this amendment, the first sentence of the subdivision would read:

(f) Option to Produce Records. When the answer to an interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the records (including electronically stored information) of the party to whom the interrogatory is

43

directed, production of the records in lieu of a written response is a sufficient answer.

Additionally, the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

New subdivision (g) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340(d), regarding the effect of answers on other parties, with changes in language. In particular, the title and text is amended to replace the term “co-party” with the phrase “other parties” since this more accurately depicts the language of a family law proceeding. Additionally, the phrase “shall not be” is replaced by the term “are not.” With these amendments, the subdivision would read:

(g) Effect on Other Parties. Answers made by a party are not binding on any other party.

New subdivision (h) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340(e), regarding the service of interrogatories, with some modifications. In particular, the title is amended to delete the phrase “and Filing.” Additionally, the last three sentences of the subdivision are deleted since this language is already addressed in proposed subdivision (d). Lastly, the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide and the term “papers” is replaced with the term “pages” in response to the institution of e-filing and e-service requirements.

RULE 12.350. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS AND ENTRY UPONON LAND FOR INSPECTION AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.350. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.350, with changes to cross-references and simplification of language. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

The title of the rule is amended to remove archaic language.

New subdivision (a) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.350(a), regarding the scope of a party’s request, with minor changes. In particular, the subdivision is reformatted from the existing single paragraph into subdivisions (a)(1)–(a)(3) for easier reading. Additionally, the cross-reference to

44

Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b) is replaced with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.280(c) throughout the subdivision. Lastly, to simplify language the term “phono-records,” in subdivision (a)(1), is replaced with the phrase “audio, visual, or digital recordings” and the term “upon,” in subdivision (a)(3) is replaced with the term “on.”

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.350(b), regarding the procedure for making a request, with the minor changes of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide, replacing the term “plaintiff” with the term “petitioner” to depict the nomenclature used in family law proceedings, and replacing the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380 with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.380.

New subdivision (c) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.350(c), regarding persons that are not parties, with the minor change of replacing the term “upon” with the term “on.”

New subdivision (d) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.350(d), regarding the filing of documents, with the minor change of replacing the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(g) with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.280(j).

RULE 12.351. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS WITHOUT DEPOSITION

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.351. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.351 with changes to cross-references and modernizing language. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

New subdivision (a) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.351(a), regarding the scope of the request, with the minor changes of replacing the cross-references to Rules of Civil Procedure 1.350(a) and 1.310 with cross-references to Family Rules 12.350(a) and 12.310, respectively, and replacing the phrase “pursuant to” with the term “under” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.351(b), regarding the procedure of the request, with the minor changes of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” to conform to the Style Guide and

45

replacing the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080 with a cross-reference to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516.

New subdivision (c) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.351(c), regarding subpoenas, with the minor change of replacing the cross-references to Rules of Civil Procedure 1.410(d) and 1.310 with cross-references to Family Rules 12.410(d) and 12.310, respectively. Additionally, to conform to the Court’s Style Guide, the terms “upon,” “pursuant to,” and “shall be” are replaced with the terms “on,” “under,” and “is,” respectively. The term “shall” is also replaced by the term “must,” “will,” or “may,” as appropriate.

New subdivision (d) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.351(d), regarding rulings on an objection, with the minor changes of replacing the phrase “pursuant to” with the term “under” and replacing the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310 with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.310.

New subdivision (e) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.351(e), regarding furnishing copies, with the minor change of replacing the term “shall” with the term “may.”

New subdivision (f) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.351(f), regarding independent actions, with the minor change of replacing the term “upon” with the term “on.”

RULE 12.360. EXAMINATION OF PERSONS

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.360 with some changes to allow the rule to be more directly applicable to family law proceedings. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

New subdivision (a)(1) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360(a)(1), regarding the scope of the request. In addition to this incorporated language, the proposed rule adds an additional sentence to specify additional areas of inquiry that are available in family law proceedings. This language reads: “Examinations may include, but are not limited to, examinations involving physical or mental condition, employability or vocational testing, genetic testing, or any other type of examination related to a matter in controversy.”

46

New subdivision (a)(1)(A) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360(a)(1)(A) with changes in language to update nomenclature, increase ease of reading, and conform to the Court’s Style Guide. In particular, the first sentence is amended to replace the term “plaintiff” with the phrase “party or other persons.” Additionally, the phrase “or party” is added to the fourth line and the phrase “on that party” is deleted from the end of the sentence. With these amendments, the first sentence would read:

When the physical condition of a party or other person under subdivision (a)(1) is in controversy, the request may be served on the party or other persons without leave of court after commencement of the action, and on any other person or party with or after service of the process and initial pleading.

In the remaining portion of the paragraph, the term “defendant” is replaced with the term “respondent” and the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must.”

New subdivision (a)(1)(B) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360(a)(1)(B) with the minor changes of replacing the term “where” with the phrase “in which” to be more grammatically correct and replacing the term “shall” with the term “may” or “must,” as appropriate.

New subdivision (a)(1)(C) directs that the examination of a minor child is governed by Family Rule 12.363, an existing rule regarding the participation of minor children in family law proceedings and is unique to Family Law practice. With the creation of this language, the Committee believes there is no need to incorporate the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360(a)(1)(C).

New subdivision (a)(1)(D) is created to direct that social investigations are governed by Family Rule 12.364, another existing rule unique to Family Law practice.

New subdivisions (a)(2)–(a)(3) incorporate the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360(a)(2)–(a)(3) with the minor changes of replacing the phrase “shall have” with the term “has” in subdivision (a)(2) and replacing the term “upon” with the term “on” in subdivision (a)(3).

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360(b), regarding the report of the examiner, with the minor changes to subdivision (b)(1) of replacing the phrase “to be made shall” with the term “must,”

47

replacing the term “to be made shall be” with the term “is,” and replacing the term “upon” with the term “on.”

New subdivision (c) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360(c), regarding the examiner as a witness, with the minor change of replacing the term “shall” with the term “is” and adding the term “to” such that the end of the sentence reads: “...but is not to be identified as appointed by the court.”

RULE 12.365. EXPERT WITNESSES

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the last sentence of subdivision (a). In the existing rules, that sentence serves as authority for Family Rule 12.365 to supersede Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360 when a conflict arises. The Committee’s intent with this proposed rule packet would make that sentence unnecessary. Additionally, to conform to the Court’s Style Guide, the term “shall” is replaced by the term “must,” “may,” or “does,” as appropriate.

RULE 12.370. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.370. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.370 and the exception language contained in subdivisions (a) and (b) of the existing Family Rule 12.370, with formatting and language changes. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

New subdivision (a) incorporates the title of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.370(a) but the language contained within is broken into additional subdivisions for easier reading. Newly created subdivision (a)(1) is titled “Service of Request” and incorporates the language of the first three sentences of Rule 1.370(a). In the first sentence, the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b) is replaced with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.280(c). The newly added second sentence incorporates the exception language contained within existing subdivision (a), regarding the requirement that the request for admission and any response to it must comply with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425. The newly added fourth sentence incorporates the exception language contained within existing subdivision (b), regarding the requirement that “documents attached to the request for admission may not be filed with the court and may only be attached to the copy served on the party to whom the request for admissions is directed.” Additionally, throughout the subdivision, the term “shall” is replaced by the term “must,” the

48

term “upon” is replaced by the term “on,” and the term “plaintiff” is replaced by the term “petitioner.”

Newly created subdivision (a)(2) is titled “Limit on Number of Requests” and incorporates the language of the fourth and fifth sentences of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.370(a), with the minor change of replacing the term “shall” with the term “may” or “must,” as appropriate.

Newly created subdivision (a)(3) is titled “Answer or Objection to Request” and incorporates the language of the sixth through eleventh sentences of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.370(a) with minor changes in terminology. In particular, the term “defendant” is replaced with the term “respondent” to depict the nomenclature used in family law proceedings, the term “upon” is replaced with the term “on,” and the term “shall” is replaced with the term “will” or “must,” as appropriate. Lastly, the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(c), at the end of the subdivision, is replaced with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.380(c).

Newly created subdivision (a)(4) is titled “Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Answers or Objections” and incorporates the language of the final five sentences of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.370(a) with minor changes. In particular, the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must” and the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(a)(4) is replaced with a cross-reference to Rule 12.380(a)(4).

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.370(b), regarding the effect of admission, with the minor change of replacing the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.200 with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.200.

RULE 12.380. FAILURE TO MAKE DISCOVERY; SANCTIONS

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing language referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380. In place of this language, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.380 and the exception language contained in subdivisions (a) and (b) of the existing Family Rule 12.380, with language changes. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

New subdivision (a) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(a), regarding a motion for order compelling discovery, with the minor change of replacing the term “upon” with the term “on.”

49

New subdivision (a)(1) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(a)(1), regarding the appropriate court to bring a motion for order compelling discovery, with the minor changes of replacing the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(d) with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.310(d) and replacing the term “shall” with the term “must.”

New subdivision (a)(2) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(a)(2), regarding what the motion for order compelling discovery must contain, with changes to cross-references and the incorporation of the exception language contained in existing subdivision (a). In particular, the cross-references to Rules of Civil Procedure 1.310, 1.320, 1.310(b)(6), 1.320(a), 1.340, 1.350, 1.360(a), and 1.280(c) are replaced with cross-references to Family Rules 12.310, 12.320, 12.310(b)(6), 12.320(a), 12.340, 12.350, 12.360(a), and 12.280(c), respectively, and the phrase “pursuant to” is replaced by the term “under” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide. Additionally, the exception language contained within existing subdivision 12.380(a), regarding the failure to comply with any discovery requests under the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, including, but not limited to, the failure to comply with Rule 12.285, is inserted near the end of the first sentence.

New subdivision (a)(3) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(a)(3), regarding evasive or incomplete answers.

New subdivision (a)(4) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(a)(4), regarding the award of expenses incurred in obtaining the motion for order compelling discovery, with the minor change of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must.”

New subdivision (b)(1) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(b)(1).

New subdivision (b)(2) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(b)(2) with the minor changes of replacing the cross-references to Rules of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(6), 1.320(a), and 1.360, in the opening paragraph, with cross-references to Family Rules 12.310(b)(6), 12.320(a), and 12.360, replacing the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360(a)(1)(B), in subdivision (b)(2)(D) and (b)(2)(E), with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.360(a)(1)(B), and replacing the terms “pursuant to” and “shall” with the term “under” and “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide. Additionally, the phrase “paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) of this” is replaced in subdivision (b)(2)(E) by adding an “s” at the end of

50

the term “subdivision” and adding “(b)(2)(A)–(b)(2)(C)” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide citation requirements. Lastly, a new sentence is added to the end of subdivision (b)(2) that contains the exception language contained within existing subdivision 12.380(b), regarding the court’s ability to defer ruling on a party’s motion for sanctions until the conclusion of the matter in controversy.

New subdivision (c) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(c), regarding expenses incurred when a party fails to admit the genuineness of a document, with minor formatting, language, and cross-reference changes. In particular, the cross-references to Rules of Civil Procedure 1.370 and 1.370(a) are replaced by cross-references to Family Rules 12.370 and 12.370(a)(3), respectively. Additionally, the subdivision is broken into separate subdivisions (c)(1)–(c)(3) for easier reading. Lastly, the term “thereafter” is deleted and the terms “shall” and “pursuant to” are replaced with the terms “may” and “under,” respectively, to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

New subdivision (d) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(d), regarding the failure of a party to attend the deposition, serve answers to interrogatories, or respond to a request for inspection, with changes to formatting, cross-references, and language. In particular, in the opening paragraph, the cross-references to Rules of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(6) and 1.320(a) are replaced with cross-references to Family Rules 12.310(b)(6) and 12.320(a), respectively. The numbered portion of the subdivision is broken into separate subdivisions (d)(1)–(d)(3) for easier reading. Within subdivision (d)(2), the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340 is replaced with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.340. Within subdivision (d)(3), the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.350 is replaced with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.350 and an internal cross-reference is corrected by replacing the phrase “paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) of subdivision (b)(2)” with the phrase “subdivisions (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(B), and (b)(2)(C).” The closing paragraph of subdivision (d) is amended to correct an internal cross-reference by replacing the phrase “clause (2) or (3) of this” with the addition of an “s” to the end of the term “subdivision” and adding the phrase “(d)(2) or (d)(3).” Additionally, the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c) is replaced with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.280(d) and the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must” or “may,” as appropriate.

New subdivision (e) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(e).

RULE 12.390. DEPOSITIONS OF EXPERT WITNESSES

51

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.390. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.390 with minor changes. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

New subdivision (a) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.390(a), regarding the definition of the term “expert witness.”

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.390(b), regarding procedure, with the minor change of replacing the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.330(a)(3) with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.330(a)(3)(B).

New subdivision (c) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.390(c), regarding expert witness fees, with the minor change of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

New subdivision (d) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.390(d), regarding the rule’s applicability, with the minor change of deleting the term “shall” and adding a letter “s” to the end of the term “prevent.” This amendment would make the subdivision read:

(d) Applicability. Nothing in this rule prevents the taking of any deposition as otherwise provided by law.

RULE 12.410. SUBPOENA

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing language referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.410. In place of this language, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.410, with some changes, and maintains the exception language contained in existing Family Rule 12.410. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

Subdivision (a) is retitled from “Subpoenas” to read as “Subpoena Generally.” The first sentence incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.410(a). The existing exception language in Family Rule 12.410(a) is maintained as the second sentence of this proposed subdivision, with the minor changes of replacing the cross-reference to “Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.410” with the phrase “this rule” and replacing the term “shall” with the phrase “is to.”

52

Subdivision (b) is retitled from “Notice of Issuance of Subpoena” to read as “Subpoena for Testimony Before the Court.” The existing language of subdivision (b) is deleted. In place of this language, the language from Rule of Civil Procedure 1.410(b)(1)–(b)(2) is incorporated with the minor changes of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide and deleting the phrase “and without praecipe” to simplify language.

Newly numbered subdivision (c)(1) is given the title “Generally” and incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.410(c), regarding subpoenas for production of documentary evidence, with minor changes to formatting, cross-references, and language. In particular, the subdivision is broken into separate subdivisions (c)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(B) for easier reading, the term “upon” is replaced with the term “on,” the term “therewith” is replaced with the phrase “with it,” and the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080(b) is replaced with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.080(b). Additionally, the second through sixth sentences of Rule 1.380(c) are deleted as unnecessary since newly numbered subdivision (c)(2) addresses the notice to produce requirements.

Newly numbered subdivision (c)(2) is retitled from “Notice to Produce” to “Compliance with Rule 2.425” and incorporates the existing language of Family Rule 12.410(c) with the minor changes of replacing the language “Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.410” with the phrase “this rule” and replacing the term “shall” with the term “must.”

Subdivision (d) is retitled from “Production of Evidence at Trial” to read as “Service.” The existing language of Rule 12.410(d) is deleted.

Newly created subdivision (d)(1) is titled “Generally” and incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.410(d) with some changes. In particular, the terms “upon” and “therein” are replaced with the terms “on” and “in it,” respectively, to conform to the Court’s Style Guide. Additionally, in the third sentence, the language “except as applicable under rule 1.351(c) for the production of documents and things by a nonparty without a deposition” is deleted as an unnecessary reference to the Civil Rules, in light of the proposed amendments in this report.

New subdivision (d)(2) creates a subdivision that requires a party issuing a subpoena through an attorney of record or clerk of court to also serve each party to the proceeding with a notice of issuance of the subpoena. The subdivision also

53

details what must be contained in the notice and that what is contained within it must comply with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425.

New subdivision (e)(1) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.410(e)(1) with the minor changes of replacing the cross-references to Rules of Civil Procedure 1.310(b), 1.320(a), 1.280(b), and 1.280(c) with cross-references to Family Rules 12.310(b), 12.320(a), 12.280(c), and 12.280(d), respectively. Additionally, the second sentence, regarding the requirement that the subpoena state the method for recording the testimony, is deleted as inapplicable in family law proceedings.

New subdivision (e)(2) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.410(e)(2) with the minor change of replacing the term “wherein” with the phrase “in which.”

New subdivision (f) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.410(f), regarding contempt, with the minor change of replacing the term “upon” with the term “on.”

New subdivision (g) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.410(g), regarding depositions before commissioners appointed in this state by courts of other states, with the minor change of deleting the term “photostatic.”

New subdivision (h) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.410(h), regarding the subpoena of a minor, with minor changes. In particular, the terms “shall have” and “upon” are replaced by the terms “has” and “on,” respectively, to conform to the Court’s Style Guide. The terms “guardian ad litem” and “attorney ad litem” are added to the list of persons a minor subpoenaed for testimony has the right to have accompany that minor. Lastly, a new sentence is added to the end of the subdivision to notify practitioners that this subdivision does not alter the requirements of Rule 12.407 regarding the requirement that a court order must be obtained before a minor child may be subpoenaed to appear at a hearing.

In its comment, the Section pointed out two clerical issues in the Committee’s initial publication that have been fixed. The first involved the substitution of the term “shall” with the term “must” in subdivision (a). After considering the comment, the Committee decided it was best to leave the term “shall” in the subdivision. The second clerical issue arose in subdivision (d)(2), where a typographical error caused the term “unexpected” to appear in place of the

54

correct term, “unexecuted.” The Committee adjusted the terminology to correct this issue.

The Section also discussed a substantive issue with subdivision (d)(2). The Section mentioned that it would “prefer that the party issuing a subpoena not be required to serve the other parties with a notice of issuance of the subpoena until the subpoena is ‘served,’ as opposed to ‘issued.’” Appendix F–8. The Section opined that “[p]roviding notice to a party about a subpoena after ‘service,’ as opposed to after ‘issuance’ will still meet the need to ensure that Rule 2.425 is being met, but will also reduce the likelihood that the other party will give the third party witness advance notice of the pending subpoena.” Id. The Committee, after reviewing the Section’s comment, agreed with the Section’s analysis and further amended subdivision (d)(2) by replacing the term “issued” with the term “served” in the first sentence. With the additional amendment, the first sentence would read:

(2) Notice of Subpoena to Parties. A party issuing a subpoena through an attorney of record or clerk of the court under this rule must, on the same day as the subpoena is served, serve each party to the proceeding with a notice of issuance of subpoena and file this notice with the court.

RULE 12.420. DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.420, with substantial changes in language. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

Proposed amendments to existing subdivision (a), regarding voluntary dismissal, delete the existing language of the subdivision, leaving only the title.

New subdivision (a)(1) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(1), regarding voluntary dismissal by parties, with formatting changes and various language changes. In particular, the subdivision is broken into separate subdivisions (a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B) for easier reading. In addition, the language “[e]xcept in actions in which property has been seized or is in the custody of the court, an,” “or any part of an action or claim,” and “by plaintiff without order of court” is deleted. After the deletion of this language, the subdivision would read:

(1) By Parties. An action or a claim may be dismissed

55

New subdivision (a)(1)(A) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(1)(B), with the minor punctuation change of replacing the semi-colon at the end of the subdivision with a comma.

New subdivision (a)(1)(B) incorporates the first sentence of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(1)(B), but deletes the last sentence of the subdivision as inapplicable to family law proceedings.

New subdivision (a)(2) incorporates the title and first sentence of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(2) with various language changes. In particular, the title is amended by deleting the term “if” and replacing the term “claim” with the term “petition.” These amendments would make the title read “By Order of Court; Counterpetition.” Within the body of the subdivision, the terms “shall,” “instance,” and “upon” are replaced with the terms “may,” “request,” and “on,” respectively. The phrase “of this rule” is deleted as duplicative. The second sentence of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(2) is deleted and rewritten for clarity and to accurately depict the nomenclature used in family law proceedings. This new sentence provides that if a petitioner files a notice of dismissal of the original petition after a counterpetition is served by the respondent, then the counterpetition shall not be automatically dismissed.

Newly numbered subdivision (a)(3) is titled “Adjudication on the Merits” and incorporates the last sentence of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(2) with some language changes. In particular, the phrase “the order” is replaced with the phrase “a notice of stipulation,” the term “voluntary” is added, the phrase “under this paragraph” is deleted, and the language “and does not operate as an adjudication on the merits” is added to the end of the sentence. With these amendments, the subdivision would read:

(3) Adjudication on the Merits. Unless otherwise specified in a notice of stipulation, a voluntary dismissal is without prejudice and does not operate as an adjudication on the merits.

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(b), regarding involuntary dismissal, with some changes to language. In particular, the second sentence, referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090, is deleted as inapplicable to family law proceedings. The phrase “tried by the court without a jury” in the third sentence is also deleted. The last two sentences of the subdivision are deleted and rewritten for clarity and to accurately depict the nomenclature used in family law proceedings. These new sentences provide that involuntary dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or lack of an

56

indispensable party does not act as an adjudication on the merits, but that all other involuntary dismissals do, unless otherwise specified by the court.

The Committee proposes not incorporating the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(c), regarding the dismissal of counterclaims, crossclaims, or third-party claims, as this subdivision is inapplicable in family law proceedings.

Newly numbered subdivision (c) contains the existing language of Family Rule 12.420(b), regarding costs, with the minor changes of deleting the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(d) and replacing the terms “shall” and “upon” with the terms “may” and “on,” respectively. With the inclusion of this language, the Committee proposes to not incorporate the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(d).

New subdivision (d) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e), regarding the failure to prosecute, with minor changes to clean up language. In particular, the phrase “no activity by filing of pleadings, order of court, or otherwise has occurred” is deleted and the language “no activity by filing of pleadings or order of court,” is added after the language “10 months.” With this shift in language, the first sentence of the subdivision would read:

In all actions in which it appears on the face of the record that for a period of 10 months, no activity by filing of pleadings or order of court, and no order staying the action has been issued nor stipulation for stay approved by the court, any interested person, whether a party to the action or not, the court, or the clerk of the court may serve notice to all parties that no such activity has occurred.

In the rest of the subdivision, the terms “such,” “prior to,” and “shall” are replaced by the terms “the,” “before,” and “must,” respectively.

New subdivision (e) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(f), regarding the effect on lis pendens, with the minor change of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

The comments from the Section, General Magistrate Susan Roux Keith, Attorney Conrad Knutson, and Attorneys Cynthia Swanson and Tee Lee all addressed a similar issue regarding subdivision (a)(2). In the Committee’s initial publication, a clerical error caused the last sentence to be published without the term “not.” All four commenters pointed out that if a counterpetition were automatically dismissed if a petitioner filed a notice of dismissal of the original

57

petition after the counterpetition was served then the counterpetitioner would be denied due process of law and would be denied access to the court. The Committee appreciated the comments that pointed out this clerical issue and added the word “not” to the last sentence of subdivision (a)(2) to correct the issue.

RULE 12.430. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL; WAIVER

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.430. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.430 with minor changes. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

New subdivision (a) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.430(a), regarding the preservation of the right of trial by jury, with the minor change of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.430(b), regarding the demand for a trial by jury, with the minor changes of replacing the term “upon” with the term “on” and deleting the term “therefore” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide. Additionally, the term “indorsed” is replaced with the term “endorsed” to reflect modern spelling.

New subdivision (c) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.430(c), regarding the specification of issues to be tried, with the minor change of replacing the phrase “wishes so” with the phrase “would like” to simplify language.

New subdivision (d) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.430(d).

RULE 12.431. TRIAL JURY TRIAL

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.431. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.431 with some changes. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the title to read “Jury Trial” and proposes amending the text of the rule in the following manner:

The title of the rule is amended by moving the term “trial” to the end of the title.

58

Newly created subdivision (a) creates a general applicability statement providing that this rule applies in those family law cases in which a jury trial is available.

New subdivisions (b)(1)–(b)(2) incorporate the language of Rules of Civil Procedure 1.431(a)(1)–(a)(2), regarding prospective juror questionnaires, with the minor change of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

New subdivision (c) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.431(b), regarding the examination of jurors by parties, with the minor changes of replacing the phrase “shall be” with the term “is” and replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

New subdivision (d) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.431(c), regarding challenges for cause, with the minor changes of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide, making numbering corrections in subdivision (d)(1), and deleting the term “civil” in subdivision (d)(3).

New subdivisions (e)–(g) incorporate the language of Rules of Civil Procedure 1.431(d)–(f) with the minor change of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” or “may,” as appropriate, to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

New subdivision (h) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.431(g), regarding alternate jurors, with the minor changes of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” or “may,” as appropriate, replacing the phrase “shall be” with the term “is” or “are,” as appropriate, and replacing the phrase “pursuant to” with the term “under” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide. The phrase “of this rule” is deleted as duplicative. Additionally, the cross-reference to subdivision (d) is replaced by a cross-reference to subdivision (e) to reflect the new numbering of the incorporated language.

New subdivisions (i)–(j) incorporate the language of Rules of Civil Procedure 1.431(h)–(i) with the minor changes of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” or “may,” as appropriate, and replacing the term “upon” with the term “on” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

RULE 12.440. SETTING ACTION FOR TRIAL

59

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.440 and maintains the exception language contained in existing Family Rule 12.440. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

New subdivision (a) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(a), regarding when an action is at issue, with minor changes to nomenclature. Specifically, the last sentence is amended to replace the term “complaint” with a list that reads “petition, counterpetition, and answer.” The language “, and any answer to a counterclaim” is also deleted. With these amendments, the final sentence of the subdivision would read: “The existence of crossclaims among the parties shall not prevent the court from setting the action for trial on the issues raised by the petition, counterpetition, and answer.”

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(b), regarding a notice for trial, with some changes. In particular, the term “thereafter” at the beginning of the subdivision is deleted and the term “shall” is replaced by the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide. Additionally, the clause “, whether the trial is to be by a jury or not,” is deleted since a jury trial in family law matters is of limited availability. Lastly, a new sentence is added at the end of the subdivision that provides that if any issues are to be tried by a jury, the notice for trial must state those issues.

Newly numbered subdivision (c) contains the existing language of Family Rule 12.440(a), regarding an order setting an action for trial, with the minor change of shortening the cross-reference to “Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.200” to a cross-reference to “rule 12.200.” By maintaining this language, the Committee believed there was no need to incorporate the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(c).

Newly numbered subdivision (d) contains the existing language of Family Rule 12.440(b), regarding sanctions, with the minor change of deleting the term “shall” and adding the letter “s” to the end of the term “subject.”

The Committee proposes to not incorporate Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(d), regarding the inapplicability of this rule to Chapter 51, Florida Statutes, actions or complex cases, since these matters do not apply to family law proceedings.

RULE 12.442. PROPOSALS FOR SETTLEMENT

60

The Committee proposes deleting this rule in its entirety. The only reason for the rule’s current existence is to ensure that practitioners understand that Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442, regarding proposals for settlement, does not apply to family law proceedings.

RULE 12.450. EVIDENCE

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.450. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.450 with some changes. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

New subdivision (a) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.450(a), regarding the record of excluded evidence, with changes to simplify language and make the proposed rule more directly applicable to family law proceedings. In particular, the first sentence is amended to replace the opening clause “In an action tried by a jury if” with the language “If, during trial” to simplify reading and to replace the term “court” with the phrase “trier of fact.” The second sentence, regarding offers made out of the hearing of the jury, is deleted. The third sentence is amended to replace the term “or” with the term “and.” The fourth sentence is amended to delete the opening clause “In actions tried without a jury the same procedure may be followed except that the,” delete the phrase “that the witness,” and replace the terms “shall” and “upon” with the terms “must” and “on,” respectively. The amendments to the fourth sentence would make the sentence read: “The court on request must take and report the evidence in full unless it clearly appears that the evidence is not admissible on any ground or is privileged.” Lastly, a new sentence is created to allow a proffer to be made outside of the hearing of the trier of fact as this is the practice of some trial judges.

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), regarding the filing of evidence, with the minor change of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” to conform to the Style Guide.

RULE 12.460. CONTINUANCES

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.460. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.460, in part. In particular, instead of incorporating the first two sentences of Rule 1.460, the Committee proposes creating a new first sentence to provide that continuances are governed by Florida

61

Rule of Judicial Administration 2.545(e). The proposed rule incorporates the third sentence of Rule 1.460.

RULE 12.470. EXCEPTIONS UNNECESSARY

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.470. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.470 with some changes. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

The title of the rule is amended to delete the term “unnecessary.”

New subdivision (a) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.470(a), regarding adverse rulings, with the minor change of replacing the term “thereto” with the phrase “to the trial” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide. Additionally, the exception language contained in existing Family Rule 12.470 is added to the end of the subdivision in the form of the clause “other than as provided by rules 12.490 and 12.492,” since these rules specifically require exceptions to be filed in certain matters heard by general magistrates.

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.470(b), regarding jury instructions, with minor changes to conform to the Court’s Style Guide. In particular, the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must” or “may,” as appropriate, the term “upon” is replaced with the term “on,” and the phrase “prior to” is replaced with the term “before.” Additionally, in the seventh sentence, the term “it” is replaced by the phrase “the court” for clearer reading.

New subdivision (c) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.470(c), regarding orders for new trials, directed verdicts, or judgments, with the minor change of replacing the phrase “no obstante veredicto” with the phrase “notwithstanding the verdict” to simplify language.

RULE 12.480. MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.480. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.480 with minor changes to make the rule more directly applicable to family law proceedings. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

62

New subdivision (a) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.480(a), regarding the effect of a motion for directed verdict, with the minor change of replacing the terms “shall” and “therefor” with the terms “must” and “for it,” respectively, to conform to the Court’s Style Guide. Additionally, the phrase “if applicable,” is added whenever a jury is referenced since jury trials occur in very limited circumstances in family law proceedings.

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.480(b), regarding the reservation of a decision on a motion for directed verdict, with the minor change of replacing the term “thereon” with the term “on it” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide. Additionally, the phrase “if applicable,” is added whenever a jury is referenced since jury trials occur in very limited circumstances in family law proceedings.

New subdivision (c) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.480(c), regarding joining a motion for a new trial with a motion for directed verdict, with the change of adding references to motions for rehearing throughout the subdivision, due to the fact that in family law proceedings a new trial or rehearing may be granted, depending on the circumstances.

RULE 12.481. VERDICTS

The Committee proposes deleting this rule in its entirety. In those circumstances in which there is a separate count in a family law matter that is civil in nature, the Rules of Civil Procedure would govern that count.

RULE 12.500. DEFAULTS AND FINAL JUDGMENTS THEREON

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.500, with changes to terminology and nomenclature. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

New subdivision (a) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(a), regarding defaults entered by the clerk, with the minor change of replacing the term “paper” with the term “document” in response to the institution of e-filing and e-service requirements.

New subdivisions (b)–(c) incorporate the language of Rules of Civil Procedure 1.500(b)–(c), regarding defaults entered by the court, with the minor

63

changes of replacing the term “defend” with the term “respond” to depict the nomenclature used in family law proceedings, replacing the term “paper” with the term “document” in response to the institution of e-filing and e-service requirements, and replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

New subdivision (d) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(d), regarding setting aside a default, with the minor changes of replacing the phrase “consequent thereon” with the phrase “on it” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide and replacing the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.540(b).

New subdivision (e) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(e), regarding final judgments, with changes to properly reflect terminology and nomenclature specific to family law proceedings. In particular, the term “infant” is replaced with the term “minor,” the term “incompetent” is replaced with the term “incapacitated,” the term “averment” is replaced with the term “allegation,” and the term “references” is replaced with the term “referrals.” The terms “guardian ad litem” and “attorney ad litem” are added to expand the list of representative persons. The term “shall” is replaced with the term “must” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide. Additionally, the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.210(b) is replaced with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.210(b).

RULE 12.510. SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.510 with changes in nomenclature and terminology. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

New subdivision (a) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(a), regarding summary judgments for claimants, with the minor changes of replacing the terms “upon” and “thereof” with the terms “on” and “of it,” respectively, to conform to the Court’s Style Guide and replacing the term “claim” with the term “petition” to properly reflect the nomenclature used in family law proceedings.

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(b), regarding summary judgments for defending parties, with the minor

64

changes of replacing the term “claim” with the term “petition” and replacing the term “thereof” with the term “of it.”

New subdivision (c) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c), regarding motions and proceedings on the motion, with the minor changes of conforming to the Court’s Style Guide by replacing the terms “shall,” “upon,” and “forthwith” with the terms “must,” “on,” and “immediately,” respectively. Additionally, the cross-references to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080 are replaced with cross-references to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516.

New subdivisions (d)–(g) incorporate the language of Rules of Civil Procedure 1.510(d)–(g), with the minor changes of updating language to conform to the Court’s Style Guide and in response to the institution of e-filing and e-service requirements. In particular, the terms “shall,” “upon,” “thereupon,” thereto,” “therewith,” “pursuant to,” “forthwith,” and “papers” are replaced with the terms “must,” “on,” “then,” “to it,” “with it,” “under,” “immediately,” and “documents,” respectively.

RULE 12.525. MOTIONS FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES

The Committee proposes deleting this rule in its entirety. The only reason for the rule’s current existence is to ensure that practitioners understand that Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525, regarding motions for costs and attorneys’ fees, does not apply to family law proceedings.

RULE 12.530. MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL AND REHEARING; AMENDMENTS OF JUDGMENT

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.530, with minor changes. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

New subdivisions (a)–(e) incorporate the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(a)–(e) with the minor changes of adding the phrase “or rehearing” to any mention of a new trial and replacing the terms “shall” and “thereto” with the terms “must” and “to it,” respectively, to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

New subdivision (f) is created, regarding the determination of whether a hearing on a motion for rehearing or new trial is needed, because the Committee

65

determined that there was a lack of consistency around the state with regard to how a motion for rehearing is handled and believed that this subdivision would provide clarity on this issue for litigants, practitioners, and the courts.

Newly numbered subdivision (g) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(f), regarding the requirement that orders granting a new trial specify the specific grounds for the order, with the minor changes of adding the phrase “or rehearing” to any mention of a new trial and replacing the terms “shall” and “therefor” with the terms “must” and “for it,” respectively.

New subdivision (h) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(g), regarding motions to alter or amend judgments, with the minor changes of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” and replacing the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.540(b).

RULE 12.540. RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT, DECREES, OR ORDERS

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.540, with changes to nomenclature and terminology. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

The title of the rule is amended to delete the term “decrees.”

New subdivision (a) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(a), regarding clerical mistakes, with the minor changes of deleting the terms “therein” and “decrees” as antiquated.

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), regarding mistakes, inadvertence, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, etc., with the minor changes of replacing the terms “upon” and “shall” with the terms “on” and “must,” respectively, to conform to the Court’s Style Guide and deleting the term “decree” as antiquated. Additionally, new language is added to the end of the first sentence of the closing paragraph to provide that there will be no time limit for motions based on fraudulent financial affidavits in marital or paternity cases. A new sentence is also created to provide that the motion and attachment to it must be in compliance with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425.

66

The closing paragraph of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 is deleted as the Committee believes the extraordinary remedies described within are antiquated.

RULE 12.550. EXECUTION AND FINAL PROCESS

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.550. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.550 with minor changes. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

New subdivision (a) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.550(a), regarding issuance of executions on judgments, with the minor changes of replacing the term “shall” with the term “may” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide and deleting the phrase “without praecipe” as antiquated. Additionally, the second sentence is amended to replace the semi-colon with a period and the phrase “provided execution” is replaced with the term “Execution” to begin a new sentence.

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.550(b), regarding stays of executions, with the minor change of replacing the term “thereon” with the phrase “on it” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

RULE 12.570. ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the first sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.570. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.570, with some changes. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

New subdivision (a) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.570(a), regarding money judgments. After this incorporated language, the second sentence of existing rule 12.570 is included with the minor changes of deleting the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.570(a), adding the phrase “equitable distribution payments” after the term “child support,” and deleting the term “equitable distribution” from the end of the sentence.

New subdivisions (b)–(c) incorporate the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.570(b)–(c) with the minor changes of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” and replacing the phrase “shall have” with the term “has” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

67

New subdivision (d) creates new language to provide that actions for enforcement of issues related to parental responsibility may be brought by motion.

New subdivision (e) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.570(d), regarding vesting title, with the minor changes of replacing the phrase “shall have” with the term “has” and replacing the term “shall” with the term “will” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

RULE 12.580. WRIT OF POSSESSION

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.580. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.580, with minor changes in language. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

New subdivision (a) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.580(a), regarding the issuance of writs of possession, with the minor change of replacing the terms “shall” and “forthwith” with the terms “must” and “immediately,” respectively, to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.580(b), regarding third-party claims, with the minor changes of replacing the term “shall” with the term “must,” “will,” or “may,” as appropriate. Additionally, the beginning of the second sentence is amended to replace the phrase “Thereupon the” with the term “The” and to replace the term “shall” with the phrase “must then.” With these amendments, the second sentence would read: “The sheriff must then desist from enforcing the writ and must serve a copy of the affidavit on the party causing issuance of the writ of possession.”

RULE 12.590. PROCESS IN BEHALF OF AND AGAINST PERSONS NOT PARTIES

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.590. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.590, with the minor change of replacing the phrase “shall be” with the term “is” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

RULE 12.600. DEPOSITS IN COURT

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the first sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.600. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule

68

incorporates the language of Rule 1.600, with the minor change of replacing the term “upon” with the term “on” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide. After this incorporated language, the second sentence of existing rule 12.600 is maintained.

RULE 12.605. INJUNCTIONS

The Committee proposes creating new rule 12.605 to incorporate the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610, regarding injunctions, with some changes to the language. Specifically, the Committee proposes incorporating the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610 in the following manner:

New subdivision (a)(1) creates new language to provide that this rule does not apply to relief sought under rule 12.610.

New subdivision (a)(2) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(a)(1), with the minor change of adding the language “movant or” to the beginning of subdivision (a)(2)(B) in order for the requirement to certify that efforts were made to give notice to apply to all parties, not just those represented by counsel.

New subdivision (a)(3) renumbers and incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(a)(2), with the minor changes of replacing the terms “shall” and “forthwith” with the terms “may” or “must,” as appropriate, and “immediately,” respectively.

New subdivisions (b)–(d) incorporate the language of Rules of Civil Procedure 1.610(b)–(d), with minor changes to terminology. In particular, the term “shall” is replaced by the term “may” or “must,” as appropriate, and the term “thereof” is replaced by the phrase “of it.”

In her comment, General Magistrate Susan Roux Keith, raised issue with proposed subdivision (a)(2). In particular, General Magistrate Keith noted that the initially proposed language in subdivision (a)(2) incorporated the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(a)(1)(B) verbatim. She pointed out that many “family law cases involve parties who are self-represented.” Appendix F–16. She concluded that unless the requirement to certify that efforts were made to give notice applied to all parties and not just those represented by counsel, then “the movant could avoid the necessity of giving notice to the adverse party by not obtaining counsel.” Id.

69

The Committee reviewed General Magistrate Keith’s comment and concluded that she was correct in her assessment. As a result, the Committee chose to further amend the rule such that proposed subdivision (a)(2)(B) includes the language “movant or,” as discussed previously.

RULE 12.610. INJUNCTIONS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST DOMESTIC, REPEAT, DATING, AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE, AND STALKING

The Committee proposes amending this existing Family Rule in the following manner:

Subdivision (a) is amended to replace the cross-reference to “Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610” with a cross-reference to “rule 12.605.” Additionally, the phrase “shall apply” is replaced with the term “applies” to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

Subdivisions (b)(2)–(b)(4) are amended to replace the terms “shall,” “upon,” and “shall be” with the terms “must,” “on,” and “is,” respectively.

The title to subdivision (c)(1)(A)(i) is amended to delete “, Repeat,” and “, or Sexual” so that the amended title would read “Domestic or Dating Violence.” The same amendments are made in the body of the subdivision to remove reference to repeat and sexual violence. In the first sentence, the phrase “immediate and present” is replaced with the term “imminent” and the language “becoming the victim of” is added such that the first sentence would read: “For the injunction for protection to be issued ex parte, it must appear to the court that an imminent danger of becoming the victim of domestic or dating violence exists.” The second sentence is amended to add the language “, and any other matters as provided by section 90.204(4), Florida Statutes,” to bring to light 2014 statutory amendments to section 90.204, Florida Statutes. In the final sentence, the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must.”

Subdivision (c)(1)(A)(ii) is amended to create new language specifically identifying the statutory standards for a temporary injunction for repeat or sexual violence to be issued ex parte. The language of this subdivision closely mirrors the language of subdivision (c)(1)(A)(i), including containing a reference to section 90.204(4), Florida Statutes.

Newly numbered subdivision (c)(1)(A)(iii) incorporates the language of existing subdivision (c)(1)(A)(ii), regarding stalking, with the addition of language

70

to reference section 90.204(4), Florida Statutes, to bring to light the 2014 statutory amendments to that section. The term “shall” is also replaced with the term “must” in the final sentence.

Subdivisions (c)(1)(B)–(c)(1)(C) are amended to replace the term “shall” with the term “must.”

The remaining subdivisions of the rule, (c)(2)–(c)(7), are amended to update language to conform to the Court’s Style Guide. In particular, the terms “shall,” “upon,” “pursuant to,” and “shall be” are replaced by the terms “must,” “on,” “under,” and “is,” respectively. The phrase “of this rule” is also deleted from subdivision (c)(6) as duplicative.

The Committee proposes adding a new Committee Note to address that the amendments to subdivision (c)(1)(A) are intended to bring the rule into conformity with the statutory requirements governing the issuance of injunctions for protection against domestic, repeat, dating, and sexual violence, and stalking. Additionally, an “s” is added to the end of “Committee Note” to reflect the presence of more than one Committee Note.

In her comment, General Magistrate Susan Roux Keith, pointed out that only section 741.30, Florida Statutes, regarding petitions for injunction for protection against domestic violence, and section 784.046, Florida Statutes, regarding petitions for injunction against dating violence, require an allegation and determination that the petition “is in imminent danger of becoming a victim,” as the existing rule is currently worded. General Magistrate Keith continued by pointing out that section 784.06(4)(b), Florida Statutes, regarding petitions for injunctions for protection against repeat violence, requires “an allegation that the ‘[p]etitioner has suffered repeat violence’” and that section 784.046(4)(b), Florida Statutes, regarding petitions for injunction for protection against sexual violence, requires “an allegation that the ‘[p]etitioner has suffered sexual violence.’” Appendix F–16. General Magistrate Keith concluded by pointing out that there “is no requirement in either the Repeat Violence or Sexual Violence statutes that the Petitioner has cause to believe they are in ‘imminent danger.’” Id.

The rules within the initial publication, to which General Magistrate Keith directed her comments, contained no amendments to subdivision (c)(1)(A)(i) aside from amending terminology to conform to the Court’s Style Guide. Based on these comments, though, the Committee believed it was necessary to further amend the rule to bring the rule into conformity with the statutory language to clear up the

71

existing problems identified by General Magistrate Keith. As such, the amendments to subdivisions (c)(1)(A)(i)–(c)(1)(A)(iii), as described above, were included this report.

RULE 12.620. RECEIVERS

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing portion of the sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.620. In place of this language, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.620, with minor changes. Specifically, the Committee proposes amending the rule in the following manner:

New subdivision (a) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.620(a), regarding notice of applications for the appointment of receivers, with the minor changes of replacing the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610 with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.605 and adding the term “notice” to the beginning of the sentence while deleting the phrase “as to notice shall” in the middle of the sentence to provide for clearer reading of the subdivision. With these amendments, the subdivision would read:

(a) Notice. The notice provisions of rule 12.605 apply to applications for the appointment of receivers.

New subdivision (b) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.620(b), regarding receiver reports, with the minor changes of replacing the terms “shall” and “thereon” with the terms “must” and “on it,” respectively, to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

New subdivision (c) incorporates the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.620(c), regarding the bond of the receiver.

New subdivision (d) is created and titled “Contents of Inventory.” The subdivision incorporates the exception language of existing Rule 12.620 which directs that “[a]ny inventory filed with the court must be in compliance with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425.” The term “shall” is replaced with the term “must” in this language.

RULE 12.625. PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SURETY ON JUDICIAL BONDS

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.625. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule

72

incorporates the language of Rule 1.625, regarding proceedings against sureties on judicial bonds, with the minor changes of replacing the terms “shall” with the term “must” or “may,” as appropriate, to conform to the Court’s Style Guide and replacing the term “papers” with the term “documents” in response to the institution of e-filing and e-service requirements.

RULE 12.630. EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES

The proposed amendment to this rule deletes the existing sentence referring to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.630. In place of this sentence, the proposed rule incorporates the language of Rule 1.630, regarding extraordinary remedies, with minor changes. In particular, the term “shall” is replaced with the term “must” or “may,” as appropriate, to conform to the Court’s Style Guide, the terms “complaint,” “plaintiff,” and “defendant” are replaced by the terms “petition,” “petitioner,” and “respondent,” respectively, to reflect nomenclature used in family law proceedings, and the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140, in subdivision (e), is replaced with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.140.

FORM 12.910(a). SUMMONS: PERSONAL SERVICE ON AN INDIVIDUAL

The proposed amendment to this form replaces the existing cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070, in the “Where can I look for more information?” section of the form instructions, with a cross-reference to Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.070. Additionally, the bulleted paragraphs in the instructions are replaced with letter designations.

FORM 12.911(a). SUBPOENA FOR HEARING OR TRIAL (ISSUED BY CLERK)

The Committee proposes creating new Form 12.911(a) to replace the use of Rule of Civil Procedure Form 1.910(a) (Subpoena for Trial (For Issuance by Clerk)) in family law proceedings. This form is created based on the requirements set forth in Family Rule 12.410 and is used to require the appearance of witnesses at a trial or a hearing and to notify the other parties of those witnesses that have been subpoenaed.

FORM 12.911(b). SUBPOENA FOR HEARING OR TRIAL (ISSUED BY ATTORNEY)

73

The Committee proposes creating new Form 12.911(b) to replace the use of Rule of Civil Procedure Form 1.910(b) (Subpoena for Trial (For Issuance by Attorney of Record)) in family law proceedings. This form is created based on the requirements set forth in Family Rule 12.410 and is used to require the appearance of witnesses at a trial or a hearing and to notify the other parties of those witnesses that have been subpoenaed.

FORM 12.911(c). SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR HEARING OR TRIAL (ISSUED BY CLERK)

The Committee proposes creating new Form 12.911(c) to replace the use of Rule of Civil Procedure Form 1.911(a) (Subpoena Duces Tecum for Trial (For Issuance by Clerk)) in family law proceedings. This form is created based on the requirements set forth in Family Rule 12.410 and is used to require the appearance of witnesses at a trial or a hearing and to notify the other parties of those witnesses that have been subpoenaed. The form also requires the subpoenaed witnesses to bring specified items with them.

FORM 12.911(d). SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR HEARING OR TRIAL (ISSUED BY ATTORNEY)

The Committee proposes creating new Form 12.911(d) to replace the use of Rule of Civil Procedure Form 1.911(b) (Subpoena Duces Tecum for Trial (For Issuance by Attorney of Record)) in family law proceedings. This form is created based on the requirements set forth in Family Rule 12.410 and is used to require the appearance of witnesses at a trial or a hearing and to notify the other parties of those witnesses that have been subpoenaed. The form also requires the subpoenaed witnesses to bring specified items with them.

FORM 12.911(e). SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION (ISSUED BY CLERK)

The Committee proposes creating new Form 12.911(e) to replace the use of Rule of Civil Procedure Form 1.912(a) (Subpoena for Deposition (For Issuance by Clerk)) in family law proceedings. This form is created based on the requirements set forth in Family Rule 12.410 and is used to require the appearance of witnesses at a deposition and to notify the other parties of those witnesses that have been subpoenaed.

FORM 12.930(a). NOTICE OF SERVICE OF STANDARD FAMILY LAW INTERROGATORIES

74

The proposed amendment to this form replaces the existing cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340(c), in the first paragraph of the “You may want to inform the other party of the following information:” section of the form instructions, with a cross-reference to Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.340(d). Additionally, the proposed amendments delete the cross-references to Rules of Civil Procedure 1.280, 1.340, and 1.380 in the “Where can I look for more information?” section.

FORM 12.930(b). STANDARD FAMILY LAW INTERROGATORIES FOR ORIGINAL OR ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS

The proposed amendment to this form deletes the existing cross-references to Rules of Civil Procedure 1.280, 1.340, and 1.380, in the “Where can I look for more information?” section of the form instructions. Additionally, within the bolded language in the middle of the paragraph beginning with “You may want to inform the other party of the following information:,” the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340(c) is replaced with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.340(d). The term “shall” is replaced with the term “may” in the third sentence to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

FORM 12.930(c). STANDARD FAMILY LAW INTERROGATORIES FOR MODIFICATION PROCEEDINGS

The proposed amendment to this form deletes the existing cross-references to Rules of Civil Procedure 1.280, 1.340, and 1.380, in the “Where can I look for more information?” section of the form instructions. Additionally, the term “shall” is replaced with the term “may” in the third sentence of the second paragraph of the “Special Notes...” section to conform to the Court’s Style Guide.

FORM 12.930(d). NOTICE OF SERVICE OF ANSWERS TO STANDARD FAMILY LAW INTERROGATORIES

The proposed amendment to this form deletes the existing cross-references to Rules of Civil Procedure 1.280, 1.340, and 1.380, in the “Where can I look for more information?” section of the form instructions. Additionally, within the second paragraph of the form, the cross-reference to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340(c) is replaced with a cross-reference to Family Rule 12.340(d).

FORM 12.975. NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WHEN CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE IS BROUGHT

75

The Committee proposes creating new Form 12.975 to replace the use of Rule of Civil Procedure Form 1.975 (Notice of Compliance When Constitutonal Challenge Is Brought) in family law proceedings. This form is created based on the requirements set forth in Family Rule 12.071 and is used to provide notice of a constitutional challenge as required by section 86.901, Florida Statutes.

FORM 12.999. FINAL DISPOSITION FORM

The Committee proposes creating new Form 12.999, regarding the final disposition of a litigated family law matter that is to be filed with the clerk of the court. The form enables either of the parties to inform the clerk of the court that a final order on the matter litigated has been issued by the court in order for the clerk to accurately reflect in the court records that the matter is closed.

WHEREFORE, the undersigned respectfully requests that the Court amend the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure as outlined in this Out-of-Cycle Report of the Family Law Rules Committee.

Respectfully submitted on June 6, 2016.

/s/ Charles Cole Jeffries, Jr. /s/ John F. Harkness, Jr.Charles Cole Jeffries, Jr., ChairFamily Law Rules Committee2501 West Morrison AvenueTampa, FL 33629-5328813/244-3399ccjeffries@earthlink.netFlorida Bar No. 496944

John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive DirectorThe Florida Bar651 East Jefferson StreetTallahassee, FL 32399-2300850/561-5758jharkness@flabar.orgFlorida Bar No. 123390

76

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing Out-of-Cycle Report of the Family Law Rules Committee was served through the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal on June 6, 2016.

Cynthia Stump Swanson2830 Northwest 41st Street, Suite MGainesville, FL 32606-6667cynthia.swanson@swansonlawcenter.com

Tee Hoa Lee2830 Northwest 41st Street, Suite MGainesville, FL 32606-6667tee.lee@swansonlawcenter.com

Joan K. KochChief CounselFlorida Department of RevenueChild Support ProgramPost Office Box 8030Tallahassee, FL 32314-8030kochj@dor.state.fl.us

Maria C. Gonzalez, ChairFamily Law Section500 East Broward Street, Suite 1580Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394mgonzalez@ybkglaw.com

Reuben A. Doupe, Co-ChairRules and Forms CommitteeFamily Law Section225 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 220Naples, FL 34102rdoupe@kdfamilylaw.com

Sarah E. Kay, Co-ChairRules and Forms CommitteeFamily Law Section307 South Magnolia AvenueTampa, FL 33606sarah@mbc-lawoffice.com

Monica Medina4045 Sheridan Avenue, #373Miami Beach, FL 33140medinalaw36@gmail.commedina-law@hotmail.com

Conrad T. Knutson1307 Riverside DriveTarpon Springs, FL 34689-2061ctknutsonesq@yahoo.com

Susan Roux KeithGeneral MagistrateMarion County Judicial Center110 Northwest 1st AvenueOcala, FL 34475

77

skeith@circuit5.org

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that these rules and forms have been read against West’s Florida Rules of Court, Vol. I — State (2016 edition).

I certify that this document meets the font requirements of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.210(a)(2).

/s/ Gregory A. ZhelesnikGregory A. Zhelesnik, Staff LiaisonRules of Civil Procedure CommitteeThe Florida Bar651 E. Jefferson StreetTallahassee, FL 32399-2300850/561-5709gzhelesnik@flabar.orgFlorida Bar No. 52969