Opinion
Case No. 6D23-227
06-16-2023
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LEE COUNTY, Appellant, v. Steven J. BRACCI, P.A., Appellee.
Christopher D. Donovan and James D. Fox, of Roetzel & Andress, LPA, Naples, for Appellant. Steven J. Bracci, of Steven J. Bracci, P.A., Naples, for Appellee.
Christopher D. Donovan and James D. Fox, of Roetzel & Andress, LPA, Naples, for Appellant.
Steven J. Bracci, of Steven J. Bracci, P.A., Naples, for Appellee.
TRAVER, C.J.
The School District of Lee County ("School Board") appeals from a final order entered in a post-judgment contempt proceeding. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A) ; Kozel v. Kozel , 260 So. 3d 337, 337 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (reviewing contempt rulings in post-judgment order as final order pursuant to rule 9.030 ). We affirm the trial court's final order, but we remand for the trial court to strike a factual conclusion contained in it because Steven J. Bracci, P.A., a Florida Professional Association ("Bracci, P.A."), did not request this relief in its motion and there is no evidentiary basis for its inclusion.
This case was transferred from the Second District Court of Appeal to this Court on January 1, 2023.
This dispute arises from a federal lawsuit over the School Board's termination of a food vendor's contract. The federal case includes several counts, including that the School Board violated Florida law when its superintendent had "a series of private one-on-one conversations" with School Board members "and polled each School Board Member about whether to terminate the [food vendor's] contract."
Shortly after filing the federal lawsuit, Bracci, P.A. made a public records request to the School Board. When it did not receive a response, it filed an action alleging the School Board violated the Public Records Act, sections 119.01–.15, Florida Statutes (2020). The trial court agreed and entered a detailed final order requiring the School Board to produce the public records, Bracci, P.A. requested. Thereafter, Bracci, P.A. filed a post-judgment motion to compel and for contempt, asserting, among other arguments, that the School Board had not provided notes compiled by the School Board's Chief of Staff in connection with the individual calls between the superintendent and the School Board members.
Following a non-evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted Bracci, P.A.’s motion to compel. It did not, however, hold the School Board in contempt. Indeed, it concluded the School Board had already produced the notes. The School Board does not challenge this ruling. As it did below, it only disputes a factual conclusion contained in the order about what the notes purportedly show. Specifically, the trial court opined that the Chief of Staff's notes "are akin to minutes documenting what appears to be polling of the school board members as to whether or not the board members supported the recommendation of the superintendent to terminate the [food vendor's] fresh produce contract."
The trial court did not err in concluding that the notes were "akin to minutes" because this was relevant to the inquiry about whether the notes were the Chief of Staff's personal notes or public record. But the trial court erred when it made an unsupported factual finding of what the notes documented. This factual conclusion went beyond Bracci, P.A.’s pleadings and is irrelevant to the public records and contempt issues raised in its motion. See Jackson v. Household Fin. Corp. III , 298 So. 3d 531, 540 (Fla. 2020) (recognizing that pleadings frame what is relevant); Da Cunha v. Mann , 183 So. 3d 1113, 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (striking trial court's factual conclusion where pleadings did not seek it).
Further, competent, substantial evidence does not support the factual conclusion. The trial court did not take evidence; indeed, the notes were not admitted into evidence at the hearing. See Wolkoff v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc. , 153 So. 3d 280, 281–82 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) ("A document that was identified but never admitted into evidence as an exhibit is not competent evidence to support a judgment."). Finally, attorney argument does not constitute evidence to support a factual finding. See State v. T.A. , 528 So. 2d 974, 975 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
For these reasons, we affirm the trial court's order with directions to strike the factual finding about what the subject documentation "appears to be."
AFFIRMED and REMANDED with DIRECTIONS.
COHEN and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.