Town of Manalapan v. Rechler

• Decision Date: 01 May 1996
• Docket Number: No. 95-0503,95-0503
• Parties: 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1046 The TOWN OF MANALAPAN Appellant, v. Morton RECHLER and Beverly Rechler, his wife, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 789

674 So.2d 789

21 Fla. L. Weekly D1046

The TOWN OF MANALAPAN Appellant, v. Morton RECHLER and Beverly Rechler, his wife, Appellees.

No. 95-0503.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Fourth District.

May 1, 1996.

Rehearing Denied June 17, 1996.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit; Moses Baker, Judge.

John Beranek of Macfarlane Ausley Ferguson & McMullen, Tallahassee, James McCartney Wearn of James McCartney

Wearn, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Michael R. Piper, for Appellant.

Daniel S. Rosenbaum and Karen E. Roselli of Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellees.

POLEN, Judge.

The Town of Manalapan (Town) appeals a Writ of Mandamus ordering Town to process all public records requests submitted by appellees Morton & Beverly Rechler (Rechlers) in strict accordance with the requirements of section 119.07, Florida Statutes (1993), the Florida Public Records Act. We affirm the trial court's order granting the Writ of Mandamus, but sua sponte strike that portion of the last sentence of the writ in which the trial court retains jurisdiction to oversee the continued enforcement of the writ.

Prior to the commencement of the present suit, the Rechlers were involved in litigation with a third party. As part of that suit, the Rechlers made several requests for public information from Town under Chapter 119.07(1). Allegedly, the Town unreasonably delayed the production of these documents, which gave rise to this request for mandamus.

A two day, non-jury trial was held on the Rechlers' petition for mandamus. The trial court found the Town had engaged in a pattern of delay when providing the requested material. Additionally, the court found the delays excessive and unreasonable and ordered Town to process all public records requests in strict accordance with Chapter 119.

The last sentence of the trial court's order states:

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Court retains jurisdiction of this case to enforce this Writ of Mandamus, and to determine all issues relative to attorneys' fees and costs.

While mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel the performance of ministerial duties devolved by law on public officers, it will not lie where continued judicial supervision is required. Mandamus is defined as a remedy to command performance of a ministerial act that the person deprived has a right to demand, or a remedy where public officials or agencies may be coerced to perform ministerial duties that they have a clear legal duty to perform. Miami v. State, 164 So.2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); City of Coral Gables v. State ex rel. Worley, 44 So.2d 298 (Fla.1950). A duty or act is defined as ministerial when there is no room for the exercise of discretion, and the performance being required is directed by law. Solomon v. Sanitarians' Registration Bd., 155 So.2d 353 (Fla.1963).

Mandamus, however, will not lie to prevent a future harm. Daniels v. Bryson, 548 So.2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In Daniels the court held:

Injunctive relief would be appropriate, we believe, where there is a demonstrated pattern of noncompliance with the Public Records Law, together with a showing of likelihood of future violations. Mandamus would not be an adequate remedy,...