This article provides a brief overview of actions for a declaratory judgment under Florida law. Typically, the plaintiff in a civil case is seeking to enforce a claim against the defendant and to obtain compensation for resulting injuries. However, in an action for a declaratory judgment, the plaintiff seeks a binding adjudication by the court determining the rights of the parties.
As the Florida Supreme Court has noted, “[t]he purpose of a declaratory judgment is to afford parties relief from insecurity and uncertainty with respect to rights, status, and other equitable or legal relations.” Santa Rosa Cty. v. Admin. Comm’n, Div. of Admin. Hearings, 661 So. 2d 1190, 1192 (Fla. 1995).
For example, often parties to a contract will dispute their respective rights and obligations under the contract. Imagine a home is damaged by a hurricane and at the time, the property is insured under an insurance policy. The homeowner then notifies his or her insurance company of the loss and makes a claim. Sometimes, the insurance company will dispute whether the insurance policy provides coverage for the loss.
In these situations, the insurance company might seek a declaratory judgment asking the court to determine whether the insurance policy provides coverage. “A declaratory judgment is a proper vehicle for an insurer to determine whether coverage exists for a specific pending claim.” Britamco Underwriters v. Cent. Jersey Invs., 632 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
The right to seek a declaratory judgment is established by Florida law, specifically, Fla. Stat. § 86.021. That statute, often referred to as the Declaratory Judgment Act provides:
“Any person claiming to be interested or who may be in doubt about his or her rights under a deed, will, contract, or other article, memorandum, or instrument in writing or whose rights, status, or other equitable or legal relations are affected by a statute, or any regulation made under statutory authority, or by municipal ordinance, contract, deed, will, franchise, or other article, memorandum, or instrument in writing may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under such statute, regulation, municipal ordinance, contract, deed, will, franchise, or other article, memorandum, or instrument in writing, or any part thereof, and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other equitable or legal relations thereunder.” Fla. Stat. § 86.021.
“The Declaratory Judgment Act is to be liberally construed to afford parties relief from insecurity and uncertainty with respect to rights and status.” Roth v. Charter Club, Inc., 952 So. 2d 1206, 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (internal citation omitted).
As stated by Florida’s Supreme Court, the elements of the cause of action of declaratory judgment are:
(1) there is a bona fide, actual, present practical need for the declaration;
(2) the declaration deals with a present, ascertained or ascertainable state of facts or present controversy as to a state of facts;
(3) some immunity, power, privilege or right of the complaining party is dependent upon the facts or the law applicable to the facts;
(4) there is some person or persons who have, or reasonably may have an actual, present, adverse and antagonistic interest in the subject matter, either in fact or law;
(5) the antagonistic and adverse interests are all before the court by proper process or class representation;
(6) relief sought is not merely giving of legal advice by the courts or the answer to questions propounded from curiosity.
Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding, Inc. v. Chiles, 680 So. 2d 400, 404 (Fla. 1996).
Quite frankly, the Supreme Court’s statement of the law might contain too much legalese for the average reader. As another court put it more simply:
“To plead a claim for declaratory relief in Florida, a plaintiff must plead facts to show: (1) there is a bona fide, actual, present practical need for the declaration; (2) that the declaration deals with a present, ascertained or ascertainable state of facts or present controversy; (3) that some right or privilege of the complaining party is dependent upon the facts or the law applicable to the facts; (4) there is some person who has an actual, present adverse interest in the subject matter; (5) all adverse parties are presently before the court; and (6) the relief sought is not merely seeking an advisory opinion.” La Gorce Palace Condo Assoc. v. QBE Ins. Corp., 733 F. Supp. 2d 1332, 1335 (S.D. Fla. 2010).
In a more recent case, the Third District Court of Appeals stated:
“To be entitled to a declaratory judgment, one must demonstrate that (1) a good-faith dispute exists between the parties; (2) one presently has a justiciable question concerning the existence or non-existence of a right or status, or some fact on which such right or status may depend; (3) one is in doubt regarding one’s right or status, and (4) a bona-fide, actual, present, and practical need for the declaration exists.”
People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Alonzo-Pombo, 307 So. 3d 840, 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (quotation omitted).
“[T]he test for the sufficiency of a complaint for declaratory judgment is not whether the plaintiff will succeed in obtaining the decree he seeks favoring his position, but whether he is entitled to a declaration of rights at all.” Murphy v. Bay Colony Prop. Owners Ass’n, 12 So. 3d 924, 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (quotation omitted). “Thus, [plaintiff] needed to demonstrate that she ‘is in doubt as to the existence or nonexistence of some right, status, immunity, power, or privilege and that [s]he is entitled to have such doubt removed.’” Id. “[Plaintiff] must also show a ‘bona fide, actual, present, and practical need for the declaration.’” Id.
First, the plaintiff must show need for the declaration that is bona fide, actual, present, and practical. Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding, Inc. v. Chiles, 680 So. 2d 400, 404 (Fla. 1996). Conversely, “[a] declaratory judgment ‘may not be invoked if it appears that there is no bona fide dispute with reference to a present justiciable question.’” Vazquez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 304 So. 3d 1280, 1286 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (quotation omitted).
For example, in Vazquez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 304 So. 3d 1280, 1286 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), the court determined that there was no bona fide dispute because an earlier decision of the court had already “settled the question of law,” rendering “the declaration requested … moot.”
Second, the action must deal with “a present, ascertained or ascertainable state of facts or present controversy as to a state of facts.” Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding, Inc. v. Chiles, 680 So. 2d 400, 404 (Fla. 1996).
This element appears to be substantially similar to the sixth element, which requires that the action is not seeking legal advice or an answer to a theoretical question. This would explain why more recent discussions of declaratory judgments list four elements instead of the traditional six elements. See People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Alonzo-Pombo, 307 So. 3d at 843.
Third, the plaintiff must show some immunity, power, privilege or right of his is dependent upon the facts or the law applicable to the facts; or stated somewhat differently, that the plaintiff has ascertainable rights. Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding, Inc. v. Chiles, 680 So. 2d 400, 404 (Fla. 1996).
In order for declaratory judgment action to lie, there must be some doubt as to existence or nonexistence of some right, status, immunity, power or privilege, which may be at stake under a statute, deed, will, contract, or other written document.
Fourth, the plaintiff must show that he has standing to bring the suit, which means he must show that he is someone with an actual, present, adverse and antagonistic interest in the subject matter. Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding, Inc. v. Chiles, 680 So. 2d 400, 404 (Fla. 1996).
Standing is required for a plaintiff to bring any civil action, so stating that standing is an element of a declaratory action is sort of superfluous. This would also explain why more recent discussions of declaratory actions list four elements instead of the traditional six elements. See People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Alonzo-Pombo, 307 So. 3d at 843.
Fifth, the plaintiff must bring before the court a true adversary who will fight against the plaintiff and against whom litigation is unavoidable. Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding, Inc. v. Chiles, 680 So. 2d 400, 404 (Fla. 1996). Simply stated, the right parties, and all the right parties, must be involved in the litigation.
Sixth, the relief sought is not merely legal advice by the courts or the answer to questions propounded from curiosity. Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding, Inc. v. Chiles, 680 So. 2d 400, 404 (Fla. 1996). In other words, the dispute must be actual, not theoretical. Florida Society of Ophthalmology v. State, Dept. of Professional Regulation, 532 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
As noted, the purpose of a declaratory action is to obtain a judicial determination resolving a dispute as to the parties’ respective rights. However, in certain situations money damages are recoverable in declaratory actions. See McAllister v. Breakers Seville Ass’n, 41 So. 3d 405, 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quotation omitted) (“It is generally held that a money judgment may be obtained for damages sought as incidental or supplemental relief pursuant to a declaratory decree.”); Hill v. Palm Beach Polo, Inc., 805 So. 2d 1014, 1016 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“[D]eclaratory relief … includes all relief necessary, including money judgments.”).
In Coconut Key Homeowner’s Ass’n v. Gonzalez, 246 So. 3d 428, 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), a homeowner filed an action against a homeowner’s association, alleging it breached the governing documents, and seeking an injunction requiring the cure of surface water management violations. The homeowner alleged that the association’s breach caused her property to consistently flood when it rained and led to significant damage to her home. Id. The owner sought monetary damages and injunctive relief. Id. At trial, the jury found that the association breached its governing documents but that the breach was not a legal cause of damage to the owner. Id.
As a result, the owner was awarded no monetary damages. Coconut Key, 246 So. 3d at 430. However, the trial court granted the owner’s motion for entry of a mandatory injunction. Id. “The court’s decision was in accord with the jury’s finding that the Association violated clear legal rights in its governing documents, which caused Gonzalez irreparable harm without an adequate remedy under the law.” Id. On appeal, the Fourth District held that the injunction was a proper remedy and had been properly issued. Id. at 430–31.
Author Gulisano Posted on Categories Cause of Actions, Civil Litigation, Legal TheoriesAddress
1701 N. Federal Highway, Suite 4
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Fax
954-947-3910
Email
Click the icon above to call Gulisano Law now for a free consultation.
Gulisano Law, PLLC. Copyright © 2024.
All Rights Reserved.
