The Florida Senate
BILL ANALYSIS AND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(This document is based on the provisions contained in the legislation as of the latest date listed below.)
Prepared By: The Professional Staff of the Committee on Judiciary
BILL: SB 552
INTRODUCER: Senator Boyd and others
SUBJECT: Clerks of the Circuit Court
DATE: November 29, 2021
ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR REFERENCE ACTION
1. Bond Cibula JU Pre-meeting
2. ACJ
3. AP
I. Summary:
SB 552 changes laws affecting the clerks of court. It increases revenues of the clerks of court by:
Decreasing the share of certain foreclosure filing fees transferred to the General Revenue
Fund, thereby directing the fees to the clerks of court.
Changing distribution of a county court filing fee from the General Revenue Fund to the
clerks of court.
Directing the clerks of court to ask the Legislature for increased funding related to increases
in trial court judicial positions.
Allowing the clerks to review property records to verify an application for civil indigent
status.
Requiring that a judge or traffic infraction hearing officer finding an offender guilty, at a
minimum, impose the financial penalty that would have been imposed had the offender not
elected to contest the infraction.
Allowing the clerks of court to ask for Legislative funding for filings related to mental health
and substance abuse that the clerks must currently file at no charge.
The bill also:
Modifies the standard terms of a payment plan for an individual who owes money to a clerk
to establish a $25 minimum monthly payment and to limit the down payment to the lesser of
10 percent of the amount owed or $100.
Requires the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to coordinate with the
clerks of court on a system for reinstatement of driver licenses upon payment of court-related
obligations.
The fund shifts in foreclosure and county courts are estimated to have a recurring negative fiscal
impact to the state in FY 2022-23 of $17.4 million and a corresponding positive fiscal impact of
REVISED: BILL: SB 552 Page 2
$17.4 million to the clerks of court. The remainder of the bill appears to have an indeterminate
positive fiscal impact on the clerks of court.
The bill takes effect July 1, 2022.
II. Present Situation:
Clerk of the Circuit Court
The clerk of the circuit court is a constitutional officer. Each of Florida’s 67 counties are
required to elect a clerk of the circuit court
1
to serve as both the clerk of court, completing
judiciary functions, and as the “ex officio[
2
] clerk of the board of county commissioners, auditor,
recorder, and custodian of all county funds.”
3
In other words, the clerk of the circuit court wears
approximately five hats. In wearing the auditor and custodian of county funds hats, the clerk may
also be referred to as the comptroller.
4
Funding for the Clerks’ Court-Related Functions
In its capacity as the clerk of the circuit and county courts, the clerk is required to perform
various court-related, administrative and ministerial functions. Any court-related function
authorized by law or court rule must be funded by the clerk’s collection of filing fees, service
charges, costs, and fines, including the following:
Case maintenance.
Records management.
Court preparation and attendance.
Processing the assignment, reopening, and reassignment of cases.
Processing appeals.
Collection and distribution of fines, fees, service charges, and court costs.
Data collection and reporting.
Determinations of indigent status.
Paying reasonable administrative support costs to enable the clerks to carry out court-related
functions.
5
Court funding is governed by article V, section 14 of the Florida Constitution. For the clerks of
the circuit courts, article V, section 14(b) provides that the clerks are self-sustaining and fund
1
FLA. CONST. art. V, s. 16; FLA. CONST. art. VIII, s. 1.
2
See BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014) (“ex officio” means “By virtue or because of an office; by virtue of the
authority implied by office.”).
3
FLA. CONST. art. V, s. 16. This provision also provides that two officials may split the position, one serving as clerk of court
and one serving in the ex officio position. Additionally, this provision permits the election of a county clerk of court when
authorized by general or special law. Id.
4
See generally Florida Court Clerks & Comptrollers, About Us, Clerks Duties & Services, available at
https://www.flclerks.com/page/ClerksDuties (last visited Nov. 24, 2021). See also BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed.
2014) (“comptroller” means, “[a]n officer of a business or a private, state, or municipal corporation who is charged with
duties usu. relating to fiscal affairs, including auditing and examining accounts and reporting the financial status
periodically.”).
5
Section 28.35(3)(a), F.S. See also Florida Court Clerks & Comptrollers, About Us, Clerks Duties & Services, available at
https://www.flclerks.com/page/ClerksDuties (last visited Nov. 24, 2021). BILL: SB 552 Page 3
their court-related functions through the collection of filing fees, service charges, and other costs.
Specifically, article V, section 14(b) states:
(b) All funding for the offices of the clerks of the circuit and county courts
performing court-related functions, except as otherwise provided in this
subsection and subsection (c), shall be provided by adequate and appropriate
filing fees for judicial proceedings and service charges and costs for
performing court-related functions as required by general law. Selected
salaries, costs, and expenses of the state courts system may be funded from
appropriate filing fees for judicial proceedings and service charges and costs
for performing court-related functions, as provided by general law. Where
the requirements of either the United States Constitution or the Constitution
of the State of Florida preclude the imposition of filing fees for judicial
proceedings and service charges and costs for performing court-related
functions sufficient to fund the court-related functions of the offices of the
clerks of the circuit and county courts, the state shall provide, as determined
by the Legislature, adequate and appropriate supplemental funding from state
revenues appropriated by general law.
6
County Funding Referenced in Article V, Section 14(c)
As referenced above, article V, section 14(c) of the Florida Constitution states that while funding
for the state courts system, including the clerks of court, will not be required by a county or
municipality, the counties are responsible to fund certain types of court infrastructure and
maintenance, including “the cost of communications services, existing radio systems, existing
multi-agency criminal justice information systems and the cost of construction or lease,
maintenance, utilities, and security of facilities for . . . the offices of the clerks of the circuit and
county courts performing court-related functions.”
7
Additionally, counties pay “reasonable and
necessary salaries, costs, and expenses of the state courts system to meet local requirements as
determined by general law.”
8
No-Fee Court Functions
Additionally, as referenced above, there are certain categories of cases and certain types of
filings for which the clerks of court cannot charge a filing fee and possibly other service charges
or other costs. These types of cases and filings include the following:
Various services and filings for indigent parties to pending litigation.
9
Petitions for Habeas Corpus filed by persons detained as mental health patients.
10
Filing an ex parte order for involuntary examination (Baker Act).
11
6
FLA. CONST. art. V, s. 14(b) (emphasis added).
7
FLA. CONST. art. V, s. 14(c).
8
Id. Additionally, article V, section 14(a) provides that funding for state court systems as well as state attorney’s offices,
public defender’s offices, and court-appointed counsel will generally be paid from “state revenues appropriated by general
law”; and section 14(d) clarifies that the court system has no appropriations authority.
9
Sections 57.081 and 57.082, F.S. This does not include prisoners as defined in s. 57.085, F.S.
10
Section 394.459, F.S.
11
Section 394.463, F.S. See also Collins v. State, 125 So. 3d 1046, 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (noting s. 394.463, F.S., is also
known as the Florida Statutes Florida Mental Health Act or the Baker Act). BILL: SB 552 Page 4
Petitions for involuntary inpatient placement for mental health.
12
Appellate filing fees for indigent persons determined to be and involuntarily committed as a
sexually violent predator.
13
Petitions for involuntary assessment and stabilization for substance abuse impairment.
14
Petitions for a risk protection order (Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety
Act).
15
Petitions for protective injunctions against domestic violence,
16
repeat, dating, or sexual
violence,
17
or stalking.
18
History of the Clerks of Court Funding Model
1998 Article V Revision (“Revision 7”) and Implementing Legislation
Article V, section 14, was amended in 1998 to “substantially and significantly revise[] judicial
system funding, greatly reducing funding from local governments and placing the responsibility
primarily on the state.”
19
The statement of intent accompanying the revision of article V,
section 14(b), also known as “Revision 7,” reflects that the proposers intended for the Legislature
to adopt procedures: (1) to fund the clerks’ office in the event “filing fees, services charges and
costs are insufficient to cover the court-related salaries, costs, and expenses of the offices of the
clerks . . . in a given fiscal year”; and (2) for the disposition of excess revenues collected by the
clerks’ offices in a given fiscal year.
20
Further, the statement of intent clarifies that the purpose for Revision 7 is to require legislative
oversight and an independent review of clerk funding and spending practices. The reason for
independent oversight is set out as follows:
The drafters of subsection (b) recognize that there currently exists significant
disparities among what the various clerks’ offices spend to perform the same
functions. The determination by the [L]egislature as to the appropriate level
of spending should not entail an acceptance of the current level of spending
by the clerks’ offices throughout the state to perform court-related functions.
Rather, it is the intent of this proposal that the clerks be held accountable and
responsible to a cost standard which is independently established by the
[L]egislature.
21
12
Section 394.467, F.S.
13
Section 394.917, F.S.
14
Section 397.6814, F.S.
15
Section 790.401, F.S.; ch. 2018-3, s. 16, Laws of Fla.
16
Section 741.30, F.S.
17
Section 784.046, F.S.
18
Section 784.0485, F.S.
19
City of Fort Lauderdale v. Crowder, 983 So. 2d 37, 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“In its Statement of Intent, the Constitution
Revision Commission explained: ‘The state’s obligation includes, but is not limited to, funding for all core functions and
requirements of the state courts system and all other court-related functions and requirements which are statewide in nature.’
[e.s.] 26 Fla. Stat. Ann. (Supp.) 67.”).
20
William A. Buzzett and Deborah K. Kearney, Commentary <1998 Amendment (1997-1998 Constitution Revision
Commission Revision 7)>, FLA. STAT. ANN., FLA. CONST. art. V, s. 14.
21
Id. BILL: SB 552 Page 5
Revision 7’s 1998 amendment to article V had to be implemented by July 1, 2004.
22
In order to
implement the 1998 amendment, the Legislature responded “in stages, beginning with passage of
SB 1212 in 2000 (Chapter 200-237, Laws of Florida), followed by additional changes to that law
in 2001, and, finally in 2002, through the funding of a study to assist in the final phase of
implementation.”
23
The final stage was implemented during the 2003 legislative session. To provide Revision 7’s
envisioned oversight, accountability, uniformity, and procedures in funding and budgeting for
the clerks of court, the Legislature enacted sections 28.35, 28.36, and 28.37, F.S.
24
:
Section 28.35, F.S., created the Florida Clerks of Court Operations Corporation
(Corporation)
25
which is responsible to provide accountability, procedural review, and
oversight to the clerks of court budgeting process throughout the state.
Section 28.36, F.S., established budget review and approval procedures of individual clerk of
court budgets by the Corporation.
Section 28.37, F.S., ensures that a portion of certain fines, fees, service charges, and costs
collected by the clerks of court are remitted to the state to fund other court-related salaries,
costs, and expenses.
Post-Article V Revision to Clerk Funding: 2004-2008
26
Between 2004 and 2008, the clerks collected and deposited into their local fine and forfeiture
funds revenues from court filing fees, service charges, court costs, and fines assessed in civil and
criminal proceedings.
27
A portion of the revenues in a clerk’s fine and forfeiture fund was
retained to finance the clerk’s operations. However, another portion of these revenues were
distributed to the General Revenue Fund or other state trust funds to meet other court-related
costs. For example, the clerks were required to remit one-third of all fines, fees, service charges,
and costs collected to the Department of Revenue for deposit into the Clerk of the Court Trust
Fund,
28
a fund established to assist the clerks in meeting revenue deficits.
Regarding budget planning, the clerks had discretion to set their individual budgets based on
anticipated revenues and expenditures. Each clerk’s proposed budget had to be balanced with
estimated revenues equaling or exceeding anticipated expenditures, although the budget could
include a 10 percent contingency reserve.
29
If a clerk estimated that available funds plus
projected revenues were insufficient to meet anticipated expenditures for court-related functions,
that clerk could follow the statutory procedure for receiving funds from the Clerks of the Court
Trust Fund to address the deficit.
30
22
Office of State Attorney for Eleventh Judicial Circuit v. Polites, 904 So. 2d 527, 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).
23
Florida House of Representatives, House Bill 113A Staff Analysis, (May 14, 2003).
24
2003 Fla. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 2003-402 (H.B. 113–A). See also City of Ft. Lauderdale v. Crowder, 983 So. 2d 37, 39 (Fla.
4th DCA 2008). Note also that the bill seeks to amend each of these provisions.
25
See supra note 5, and text. When it was first enacted, section 28.35 the “Clerk of court Operations Conference” which was
changed in 2004 to the “Florida Clerks of Court Operations Corporation.” Chapter 2004-265, s. 23, Laws of Fla. All clerks
are members of the Corporation.
26
This section adapted or used in its entirety from the Appropriations Committee staff analysis in SB 2506 (2017).
27
Section 142.01, F.S.
28
Section 28.37(2), F.S. (2008).
29
Section 28.36(3)(b), (c), F.S. (2008).
30
Section 28.36(4), F.S. (2008). BILL: SB 552 Page 6
Each clerk had to submit its proposed budget to the Corporation for review and certification that
the individual budget was complete and complied with budget procedures.
31
Upon review and
certification by the Corporation, revenue exceeding the amount needed to fund each budget was
deposited in the General Revenue Fund.
32
During this time, the Legislature’s involvement in the clerks’ budgets was limited. The
Legislative Budget Commission (LBC) had authority to approve increases to the maximum
annual budgets approved for individual clerks if the additional funding was necessary to:
Pay the cost of performing new or additional functions required by changes in law or court
rule; or
Pay the cost of supporting increases in the number of judges or magistrates authorized by the
Legislature.
33
Clerks in the General Appropriations Act: 2009-2012
34
In an effort to gain greater oversight and accountability for the operations and funding of the
clerks of court, the Legislature passed Chapter 2009-204, Laws of Fla., which substantially
amended the clerks’ statutory budget process and procedures. The new law brought the clerks
into the state budget and appropriated their funding in the annual General Appropriations Act.
More specifically, the 2009 law required that all revenues received by the clerks from court-
related fees, fines, costs and service charges be remitted to the Department of Revenue for
deposit into the Clerks of Court Trust Fund within the Justice Administrative Commission
(JAC).
35
The law permitted the clerks, however, to deposit 10 percent of all court-related fines in
the Public Records Modernization Trust Fund to be used in addition to state appropriations for
operational needs.
36
By 2009, revenues accruing to the Clerks of Court Trust Fund began to decline due to the
downturn in the economy and the reduction in foreclosure filing fees. As a result, the Legislature
reinforced the clerks’ budgets with additional moneys from the General Revenue Fund. The 2011
Legislature appropriated $44.2 million from the General Revenue Fund to address FY 2010-2011
revenue deficits and the 2012 Legislature appropriated $57.6 million to address FY 2011-2012
deficits.
31
Section 28.36(3), F.S. (2008).
32
Section 28.37(4), F.S. (2008).
33
Section 28.36(6), F.S. (2008).
34
This section adapted or used in its entirety from the Appropriations Committee staff analysis in SB 2506 (2017).
35
Chapter 2009-204, ss. 5-8, 12, 14, 19, Laws of Fla. The clerks’ budgets were appropriated within the JAC budget from
2009-2012. See also s. 43.16, F.S. (establishes the Justice Administrative Commission, which administratively serves 49
judicial-related entities, as well as provides compliance and financial review of billings for services provided by private
court-appointed attorneys representing indigent citizens and associated due process vendors).
36
Section 28.37(5), F.S. BILL: SB 552 Page 7
Return to Pre-2009 Funding Model: 2013-2019
37
In 2013, the Legislature reversed many of the 2009 funding model changes, but expanded the
oversight and accountability in the clerks’ budget process. Significantly, the 2013 law
38
added
the following:
Monthly accounting: required each clerk to submit all collected revenues exceeding one-
twelfth of the clerk’s total budget for the prior month to the Department of Revenue for
deposit into the Clerks of the Court Trust Fund.
Annual accounting: required the transfer of revenue exceeding one-twelfth of the clerks’ total
budget out of the Clerks of Court Trust Fund into the General Revenue Fund each January
unless the official estimate by the Revenue Estimating Conference projects a trust fund
deficit (based on the current budget) in the current or upcoming fiscal year.
Corporation audits: directed the Corporation to conduct annual base budget reviews, conduct
cost-comparisons of similarly situated clerks, report pay and benefit issues, and provide an
explanation of any clerk expenditure increases over 3 percent.
39
Corporation budget standard: required the Corporation to use the official Article V Revenue
Estimating Conference revenue estimates for the clerks’ budget process.
40
The 2013 law also enhanced the role and responsibilities of the Legislative Budget Commission
(LBC), and directed the LBC to review the budgets of the clerks and either: (1) approve,
(2) disapprove, or (3) amend and approve the budgets by October 1 of each year.
41
In 2017,
however, the Legislature removed these duties from the LBC to review the clerks’ budgets.
42
Most Recent Changes -- 2019 to present
The clerk’s budget process was amended again in 2019.
43
In addition to the total estimated
revenues from fees, service charges, costs, and fines for court-related functions available for
court-related expenditures as determined by the most recent Revenue Estimating Conference, the
combined budget for the clerks of court may also include:
The unspent budgeted funds for court-related functions carried forward by the clerks of court
from the previous county fiscal year; and
The balance of funds remaining in the Clerks of the Court Trust Fund after the transfer of
funds to the General Revenue Fund required pursuant to s. 28.37, F.S.
In 2019, the requirement that the cumulative excess of all fines, fees, service charges, and costs
retained by the clerks of court exceeding the amount needed to fund their authorized budgets was
transferred to the General Revenue Fund, was changed as follows:
No later than February 1, 2020, the cumulative excess of all fines, fees, services charges, and
costs exceeding $10 million will be transferred to the General Revenue Fund.
No later than February 1, 2021, and no later than February 1, 2022, not less than 50 percent
of the cumulative excess of all fines, fees, services charges, and costs will be transferred to
37
This section adapted or used in its entirety from the Appropriations Committee staff analysis in SB 2506 (2017).
38
Chapter 2013-44, Laws of Fla.
39
Section 28.35(2)(f), F.S.
40
Section 28.35(2)(f)6., F.S.
41
Section 11.90(6)(d), F.S.
42
Chapter 2017-126, s. 1, Laws of Fla.
43
Chapter 2019-58, Laws of Fla. BILL: SB 552 Page 8
the General Revenue Fund; provided, however, that the balance remaining in the Clerks of
Courts Trust Fund after the transfer may not exceed $20 million.
No later than February 1, 2023, and each February 1 thereafter, the cumulative excess of all
fines, fees, services charges, and costs will be transferred to the General Revenue Fund.
In that same act, the 2019 Legislature was looking ahead to 2022 by including this:
Section 32. Before the 2022 Regular Session of the Legislature, the
Legislature shall review and consider the results of the analysis submitted
pursuant to Specific Appropriation 2754 of the 2019-2020 General
Appropriations Act regarding the review of the Clerk of Court Processes for
the purpose of considering the extension or reenactment of provisions in this
act relating to clerk funding.
44
Specific appropriation 2754 reads in relevant part:
From the funds in Specific Appropriation 2754, the Office of Program Policy
Analysis and Government Accountability is directed to contract with an
independent third party consulting firm to assist with a review of the Clerk of
Court processes including collection and compilation of empirical evidence
based on observation of a random sample of clerks’ offices employees;
comparison of clerks’ office work patterns to propose efficiency and
productivity standards; and assessment and comparison of organizational
arrangements and deployment of personnel resources among all clerks’
offices. Sample groups must include a broad number of large and small
counties and include entities from all areas of the state. The analysis shall be
submitted to the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the chair
of the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee by November 15,
2019.
The report contains 26 recommendations for operational efficiency and cost savings in five
categories.
45
It is unknown how many recommendations have been implemented.
III. Effect of Proposed Changes:
SB 552 primarily increases revenues of the clerks of court, and makes fiscal-related operational
changes, to wit:
Civil Case Filing Fees Retained by the Clerk
Current law requires a clerk of court to transfer to the General Revenue Fund $700 of the
foreclosure case filing fee for a foreclosure where the value of the claim is more than $50,000
but less than $250,000, retaining $195 for the clerk.
46
Current law also requires the clerk of court
44
Chapter 2019-58, s. 32, Laws of Fla.
45
Florida Clerks of Court Study, Final Report (November 15, 2019), available at
https://oppaga.fl.gov/Products/ReportDetail?rn=19-CLERKS
46
Section 28.241(1)(a)2.d.(II), F.S. BILL: SB 552 Page 9
to transfer to the General Revenue Fund $930 of the foreclosure filing fee where the value of the
claim is more than $250,000, retaining $195 for the clerk.
47
The bill increases the clerk’s share of
filing fees in foreclosure actions, and decreases the share paid to General Revenue, by $350 per
case where the value of the claim is more than $50,000 but less than $250,000, and by $465 per
case where the value of the claim is more than $250,000.
Current law imposes a $295 filing fee to file a cross claim, counterclaim, counterpetition, or third
party complaint in the county court where the relief sought exceeds $2,500 but is less than
$15,000.
48
The clerk of court is required to transfer the $295 to the General Revenue Fund. The
bill changes distribution of the county court fee for filing a cross-claim, counterclaim,
counterpetition, or third-party complaint from the General Revenue Fund to the fine and
forfeiture fund of the respective county. This will have the effect of providing additional funding
to the clerk of court.
Clerk of Courts Operations Corporation
The bill adds to the list of duties required of the Clerk of Courts Operations Corporation the duty
to:
Recommend to the Legislature changes in the distribution of monies collected by a clerk.
Recommend to the Legislature an increase in a clerk’s budget representing the total increased
costs associated with clerk support of a new trial court judicial position, based on a formula
approved by the Corporation.
Develop on an annual basis a budget request for the anticipated amount necessary for
reimbursement of certain no-fee cases related to mental health and substance abuse (see
below). The request is not subject to change by the Justice Administrative Commission, and
it must be submitted to the Governor for transmittal to the Legislature.
Payment Plans
Persons who pay money to the clerk of court for an outstanding fine, penalty, fee, service charge,
or court cost are expected to pay in full. Many individuals, however, cannot afford to pay.
Current law authorizes a clerk to accept partial payments and to enter into payment plans with
individuals.
49
Monthly payments of no more than 2 percent of the individual’s net pay is
presumed to be within an individual’s ability to pay.
50
The bill changes the terms of payment plans offered by a clerk to a person unable to immediately
pay monies owed to the clerk. The bill establishes a minimum monthly payment of $25, and
establishes a maximum initial payment of the lesser of 10 percent of the debt or $100. The $5
partial payment service charge
51
or the alternative one-time $25 service charge for establishing a
payment plan,
52
are payable in addition and thus not a part of the limits.
47
Section 28.241(1)(a)2.d.(III), F.S.
48
Section 34.041(1)(c), F.S.
49
Section 28.246(4), F.S.,
50
Using the 2021 Florida minimum wage at full-time employment and subtracting the standard federal payroll deductions, an
unmarried individual at that wage would pay no more than $26.80 a month on a clerk’s payment plan.
51
Section 28.24(27)(b), F.S.
52
Section 28.24(27)(c), F.S. BILL: SB 552 Page 10
Civil Indigent Application Investigation
An individual seeking appointment of an attorney in a civil case who is eligible for court-
appointed counsel, or seeking relief from prepayment of civil filing fees, must apply to the clerk
for a determination of civil indigent status. There is a presumption that an individual is not
indigent if the individual has a net equity of $2,500 or more, excluding homestead and excluding
equity in a vehicle of up to $5,000.
53
The clerk must accept the application on its face and may
not independently verify the information provided.
54
The bill allows a clerk of court to make a limited investigation of an individual’s application for
status as civil indigent. The clerk may conduct a review of the property records for the county in
which the applicant resides and the motor vehicle title records of this state to identify any
property interests of the applicant. The clerk may evaluate and consider the results of the review
in making a determination of civil indigent status. If a review is conducted, the results must be in
the court file should the applicant appeal the denial of civil indigent status to the trial court.
Traffic Ticket Minimum Fines
While a few noncriminal traffic infractions require a court appearance, in most cases the offender
may elect to waive the court appearance, plead guilty to the offense, and pay a specified financial
penalty.
55
A person may elect to contest the infraction and appear at a court hearing before a
judge or hearing officer, but that election requires the person to waive the right to the specified
penalty.
56
If the judge or hearing officer finds the offender guilty at the hearing, the judge or
hearing officer may impose a fine of any amount up to $500 in most infractions (a few have a
$1,000 maximum). Notably, this allows a judge or hearing officer in most cases to impose a
penalty less than the penalty imposed on an individual who does not contest the infraction. There
are two exceptions where the judge or hearing officer must impose the specified penalty as a
minimum.
57
Traffic infraction penalties are split between numerous funds. The split and the
funds affected vary based on the offense, but a portion of every penalty funds the operations of
the clerks of court.
Where a person elects to contest a traffic infraction, the bill provides that the minimum civil
penalty upon a finding of guilt is the amount that the person would have been required to pay if
the person had not contested the traffic ticket.
Driver License Suspensions
Numerous laws provide for driver license suspensions due to nonpayment of court obligations.
Currently, there are separate processes for reinstatement of the driver license based on the reason
for the suspension. Where the suspension is due to nonpayment of a traffic infraction, upon
receipt of full payment the clerk immediately clears the suspension by notice to the Department
53
Section 57.082(2)(a)2., F.S.
54
Section 57.082(2)(d), F.S.
55
Section 318.18, F.S.
56
Section 318.14(5), F.S.
57
The exceptions are passing a stopped school bus and failure to secure load. BILL: SB 552 Page 11
of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV).
58
Where the suspension is court-related but
not traffic-related, notably suspensions for delinquency in payment of child support obligations
or criminal court fees and fines
59
, the process is different and longer. There, the clerk of court
collects the monies owed and furnishes the person with an affidavit that the financial obligation
that led to the suspension has been paid. The person must then go to a county tax collector’s
office to reinstate the driver license with DHSMV. Until the process is complete, the person’s
license remains suspended.
60
The bill requires the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to coordinate with the
clerks of court, through their association, to ensure the capability within the department’s
technology systems for clerks of court to reinstate suspended driver licenses that have been
suspended for failure to pay court-related obligations.
Clerk Reimbursement for Certain No-Fee Cases
Clerks of court are supposed to be primarily funded by filing fees and service charges.
61
However, some civil cases are processed by the clerks without payment, notably protective
injunctions, mental health, substance abuse, and civil actions filed by indigents. During the
2019-20 county fiscal year, the clerks opened 183,991 civil files without payment of a filing fee
to the clerk.
62
Subject to appropriations, the bill allows a clerk of court to submit to the Justice Administrative
Commission a certified request for $40 per case reimbursement for services rendered in certain
no-fee civil cases related to mental health and substance abuse. The request for reimbursement
must be submitted in the form and manner prescribed by the Justice Administrative Commission.
The categories of cases are:
Habeas corpus filed by an individual detained under the Florida Mental Health Act
63
,
pursuant to s. 394.459(8)(d), F.S.
Determination whether an individual should be subject to an involuntary mental health
examination under the Florida Mental Health Act, pursuant to s. 394.463(2)(a), F.S.
Determination whether an individual should be subject to involuntary mental health
placement in a mental health facility under the Florida Mental Health Act, pursuant to
s. 394.467(3), F.S.
Determination whether an individual is a sexually violent predator subject to commitment to
a mental health facility for sexually violent predators, pursuant to s. 394.917(3), F.S. and
Part V of ch. 394, F.S.
Determination of whether an individual should be involuntarily assessed and stabilized due to
substance abuse, pursuant to s. 397.6814, F.S.
64
58
Section 318.15, F.S.; Florida Court Clerks & Comptrollers, Bill Analysis of SB 552 (November 24, 2021).
59
Section 322.245, F.S.
60
Florida Court Clerks & Comptrollers, Bill Analysis of SB 552 (November 24, 2021).
61
FLA. CONST. article V, s. 14(b).
62
Florida Court Clerks & Comptrollers, Bill Analysis of SB 552 (November 24, 2021). There were 135,672 statutory no-fee
cases and 48,319 cases filed by indigents.
63
The Florida Mental Health Act is also known as the Baker Act.
64
Chapter 397, F.S., is also known as the Marchman Act. BILL: SB 552 Page 12
Effective Date
The bill is effective July 1, 2022.
IV. Constitutional Issues:
A. Municipality/County Mandates Restrictions:
The bill does not require counties or municipalities to spend funds or limit their authority
to raise revenue or receive state-shared revenues as specified in Article VII, s. 18 of the
Florida Constitution.
B. Public Records/Open Meetings Issues:
None.
C. Trust Funds Restrictions:
None.
D. State Tax or Fee Increases:
None.
E. Other Constitutional Issues:
None identified.
V. Fiscal Impact Statement:
A. Tax/Fee Issues:
None.
B. Private Sector Impact:
This traffic infraction minimum fine (Section 6) will negatively impact individuals who
may have otherwise convinced a judge or hearing officer to impose a penalty less than
the statutory default.
C. Government Sector Impact:
The Revenue Estimating Conference estimates that the fee shifts in foreclosure
(Section 1) and county courts (Section 4) will have a recurring negative fiscal impact in
FY 2022-23 of $17.4 million and a corresponding positive fiscal impact of $17.4 million
on clerks of court. The Revenue Estimating Conference estimates that the remainder of
the bill has an indeterminate positive fiscal impact on the clerks of court.
BILL: SB 552 Page 13
In FY 2019-20, there were 59,502 mental health and substance abuse cases opened.
65
Assuming the same number of cases in future years, it would cost an estimated
$2.4 million should the Legislature elect to fully fund the clerks at $40 a case.
In FY 2019-20, there were 1,180,927 civil traffic infraction hearings.
66
It is unknown
how many were mandatory hearings vs. voluntary hearings to contest an infraction. It is
unknown how many hearings resulted in a finding of guilt and the judge or hearing
officer then imposed a fine less than what the offender would have paid had he or she not
contested the infraction.
VI. Technical Deficiencies:
None.
VII. Related Issues:
None.
VIII. Statutes Affected:
This bill substantially amends the following sections of the Florida Statutes: 28.241, 28.246,
28.35, 34.041, 57.082, 318.14, 322.29, 394.459, 394.463, 394.467, 394.917, and 397.6814, F.S.
IX. Additional Information:
A. Committee Substitute – Statement of Changes:
(Summarizing differences between the Committee Substitute and the prior version of the bill.)
None.
B. Amendments:
None.
This Senate Bill Analysis does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill’s introducer or the Florida Senate.
65
Florida Office of the State Courts Administrator, Statistical Reference Guide to Florida’s Trial Courts, FY 2019-20,
https://www.flcourts.org/Publications-Statistics/Statistics/Trial-Court-Statistical-Reference-Guide
66
Id.