We had a record number of visits in September:
The Following Rules have been updated pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court’s September 8, 2010 Order.
On March 18, 2010, the Florida Supreme Court enacted substantial amendments to Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.420, which governs public access to court records. These changes go into effect on October 1, 2010.
(i) Chapter 39 records relating to dependency matters, termination of parental rights, guardians ad litem, child abuse, neglect, and abandonment. § 39.0132(3), Fla. Stat.(ii) Adoption records. § 63.162, Fla. Stat.(iii) Social Security, bank account, charge, debit, and credit card numbers in court records. § 119.0714(1)(i)–(j), (2)(a)-(e), Fla. Stat. (Unless redaction is requested pursuant to 119.0714(2), this information is exempt only as of January 1, 2011.)(iv) HIV test results and patient identity within those test results. § 381.004(3)(e), Fla. Stat.(v) Sexually transmitted diseases – test results and identity within the test results when provided by the Department of Health or the department‘s authorized representative. § 384.29, Fla. Stat.(vi) Birth and death certificates, including court-issued delayed birth certificates and fetal death certificates. §§ 382.008(6), 382.025(1)(a), Fla. Stat.(vii) Identifying information in a petition by a minor for waiver of parental notice when seeking to terminate pregnancy. § 390.01116, Fla. Stat.(viii) Identifying information in clinical mental health records under the Baker Act. § 394.4615(7), Fla. Stat.(ix) Records of substance abuse service providers which pertain to the identity, diagnosis, and prognosis of and service provision to individuals who have received services from substance abuse service providers. § 397.501(7), Fla. Stat.(x) Identifying information in clinical records of detained criminal defendants found incompetent to proceed or acquitted by reason of insanity. § 916.107(8), Fla. Stat.(xi) Estate inventories and accountings. § 733.604(1), Fla. Stat.(xii) The victim‘s address in a domestic violence action on petitioner‘s request. § 741.30(3)(b), Fla. Stat.(xiii) Information identifying victims of sexual offenses, including child sexual abuse. §§ 119.071(2)(h), 119.0714(1)(h), Fla. Stat.(xiv) Gestational surrogacy records. § 742.16(9), Fla. Stat.(xv) Guardianship reports and orders appointing court monitors in guardianship cases. §§ 744.1076, 744.3701, Fla. Stat.(xvi) Grand jury records. Ch. 905, Fla. Stat.(xvii) Information acquired by courts and law enforcement regarding family services for children. § 984.06(3)-(4), Fla. Stat.(xviii) Juvenile delinquency records. §§ 985.04(1), 985.045(2), Fla. Stat.(xix) Information disclosing the identity of persons subject to tuberculosis proceedings and records of the Department of Health in suspected tuberculosis cases. §§ 392.545, 392.65, Fla. Stat.
This guaranty case states the simple rule that “pleadings are required to be in the English language.” The lender’s complaint against the borrower attached a copy of the guaranty in Spanish, a “Garantia Personal.” It was not translated into English. The trial court granted summary judgment for the lender. The appellate court reversed, reasoning that the “Garantia Personal” was made part of the complaint under Rule 1.130 and therefore the pleading was not “in the English Language.” Interestingly, the appellate court did not address whether the borrower spoke English only, Spanish only, or both English and Spanish.
We’re working to get the rules pages updated to reflect the latest changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure by the Florida Supreme Court. In the meantime, you can read all about it in this weeks edition of the Florida Civil Litigation Reporter, which we are providing for free. Go to www.FloridaCivLitReporter.com to find out how you can subscribe and get weekly civil litigation case updates.
[Smith, Hiatt and Diaz] operates its procedures in the above styled case and in the representation of Plainitffs in mortgage foreclosures in deliberate and contumacious disregard for the authority of the Court, the efficient administration of justice, and in utter disregard for the consequences to other litigants. Their disobendience of Court Orders is constant and flagrant, and, therefore, justifies this Court’s imposition of sanctions for contempt.