Authorizing Substitute Service for Unascertainable Respondents in Vulnerable-Adult Exploitation Injunctions: Florida Supreme Court’s Fast-Track Amendment to Probate Rule 5.920

Introduction

On August 28, 2025, the Supreme Court of Florida issued a per curiam decision in In re: Amendments to Florida Probate Rules – 2025 Legislation (No. SC2025-1040), adopting, on a fast-track basis, amendments to Florida Probate Rule 5.920 (Forms Related to Injunction for Protection Against Exploitation of a Vulnerable Adult). The revision implements the Legislature’s 2025 changes to section 825.1035, Florida Statutes, by expressly authorizing “substitute service” on “unascertainable respondents” in proceedings seeking injunctions to prevent exploitation of vulnerable adults. The procedural update is narrow but significant: it aligns the judiciary’s forms and practice with newly enacted statutory mechanisms aimed at countering modern, often anonymous, exploitation schemes targeting seniors and other vulnerable adults.

The parties involved in the rulemaking were The Florida Bar’s Probate Rules Committee (the petitioner) and the Florida Supreme Court exercising its constitutional rulemaking authority. The Committee unanimously approved the proposed changes. The Court adopted them as proposed and made them immediately effective, while opening a 75-day post-adoption comment period.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court amended Florida Probate Rule 5.920 to incorporate the Legislature’s creation of a process for serving orders and injunctions upon “unascertainable respondents” via substitute service under section 825.1035, Florida Statutes (as amended by chapter 2025-158, section 1, Laws of Florida, effective July 1, 2025).

Key elements of the decision:

The rule’s forms now explicitly allow service of a temporary protective injunction, a final protective injunction, and notices/orders denying an ex parte injunction “by substitute service under section 825.1035, Florida Statutes.”
The session law defines “unascertainable respondent” as “a person whose identity cannot be ascertained or whose identity is unknown, and who has communicated with the vulnerable adult through any means that make tracing the person's identity impractical.”
The Court accepted the Probate Rules Committee’s unanimously approved proposal and made the amendments effective immediately upon release of the opinion.
Because the changes were adopted on a fast-track basis (without prior publication), interested persons have 75 days (until November 12, 2025) to file comments. A motion for rehearing does not alter the effective date.

Analysis

1) Precedents and Authorities Cited

While the opinion is procedural and concise, it references essential authorities that frame the Court’s action:

Florida Constitution, article V, section 2(a): This provision grants the Florida Supreme Court authority to adopt rules for practice and procedure in all courts. It is the constitutional bedrock for judicial rulemaking in Florida.
Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.140(e): The “fast-track” rulemaking mechanism permitting the Court to promptly adopt procedural amendments in response to legislative changes, often without prior publication for comment, while still allowing a post-adoption comment period.
Section 825.1035, Florida Statutes: The substantive statute governing injunctions for protection against exploitation of a vulnerable adult. The 2025 legislation (ch. 2025-158, §1) amended this statute to create a process for substitute service on unascertainable respondents.

The Court does not cite case law precedents because the matter is rulemaking harmonization rather than an adjudication of disputed legal doctrine. Nonetheless, the cited constitutional and rulemaking authorities make clear that the judiciary is exercising its procedural rulemaking prerogative to implement a legislative policy change without altering substantive rights.

2) The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds along three straightforward axes:

Legislative-judicial alignment: The Legislature enacted a substantive policy change enabling substitute service on unascertainable respondents in elder exploitation injunction cases. The Court, using its constitutional authority, updates court forms and procedural references to ensure uniform statewide implementation of the new statutory mechanism.
Due process orientation: The amended forms continue to foreground due process. For example, they preserve findings about “reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard,” require service entries that reflect the new substitute service option, and maintain standards for temporary injunctive relief (immediacy of danger, irreparable harm, likelihood of success, public interest, and balancing of harms). The inclusion of “by substitute service under section 825.1035” is not a dilution of due process; it cross-references the legislatively prescribed substitute service process that the parties must follow.
Limited scope and immediacy: Recognizing the vulnerability at issue and the pressing need to address fast-moving exploitation scenarios, the Court deploys the fast-track procedure to avoid a gap between statutory authorization and courtroom practice. The result is a seamless and immediate procedural infrastructure to support the statute’s protective goals.

3) What Changed in Rule 5.920 and Why It Matters

The amendments primarily adjust three forms within Rule 5.920 to accommodate substitute service:

Subdivision (b) – Temporary Protective Injunction Against Exploitation of a Vulnerable Adult: The “COPIES TO” section now includes “by substitute service under section 825.1035, Florida Statutes,” recognizing an additional lawful method of serving the respondent with the temporary injunction and notice of hearing.
Subdivision (c) – Order Denying Request for Temporary Injunction and Setting Hearing: The certificate of service similarly reflects that the respondent “will be served by sheriff, or by substitute service under section 825.1035, Florida Statutes.”
Subdivision (d) – Permanent (Final) Protective Injunction: As with the temporary order, the service options now include “by substitute service under section 825.1035, Florida Statutes.”

These changes are small in text but large in effect. They normalize substitute service for the new statutory category of respondents and provide judges, clerks, litigants, and law enforcement clear, uniform instructions embedded in the official forms. This reduces uncertainty, speeds relief, and enhances consistency across circuits.

4) Statutory Backdrop and Policy Context

Section 825.1035, Florida Statutes, authorizes injunctions to protect vulnerable adults from exploitation. The 2025 legislative amendment recognizes a growing class of predators whose identities are veiled by technology, making traditional personal service impracticable. To reach these “unascertainable respondents,” the Legislature created a process for substitute service. The Supreme Court’s decision ensures the court system’s forms expressly support that process.

The opinion quotes the session law’s definition of an unascertainable respondent: “a person whose identity cannot be ascertained or whose identity is unknown, and who has communicated with the vulnerable adult through any means that make tracing the person’s identity impractical.” This definition maps directly onto modern exploitation methods—impersonation calls, spoofed numbers, burner phones, anonymous social-media messages, and other ephemeral or obfuscatory communications.

5) Impact on Practice and Future Cases

Access to protection when the wrongdoer’s identity is unknown: Petitioners can now pursue protective injunctions even if the would-be exploiter hides behind anonymity or hard-to-trace communications. This addresses a critical gap exposed by contemporary fraud patterns affecting seniors and other vulnerable adults.
Streamlined and uniform service: The official forms’ express reference to substitute service will prompt courts and clerks to process service in accordance with section 825.1035 without ad hoc improvisation, reducing delays that can exacerbate financial harm.
Due process guardrails intact: The rule does not purport to change the substantive burden for injunctions. Findings such as immediate danger, irreparable harm, and balancing of harms remain central. Orders continue to require reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard—achieved now through the statute’s substitute service mechanism when personal service is not feasible.
Enforcement clarity: The forms preserve language authorizing law enforcement to use arrest powers under section 901.15(6), Florida Statutes, for violations of the injunction. This assures cross-county enforceability and a swift response to violations.
Financial institutions and asset protection: The forms continue to provide tools for freezing the vulnerable adult’s assets, allocating costs ($75 or $200 filing fee assessments in certain scenarios), and addressing payment of critical expenses while freezes are in place. Substitute service can be pivotal in quickly obtaining court orders before assets are dissipated beyond retrieval.
Anticipated appellate questions: While the Court’s procedural changes are clear, future disputes may test the contours of “unascertainable” and the sufficiency of efforts (and proofs) required before resorting to substitute service. Those questions will likely be resolved by reference to the text of section 825.1035 as amended and due process jurisprudence.

6) Complex Concepts Simplified

Substitute service: A legally authorized method of delivering court papers when standard personal service is not feasible. Here, substitute service is expressly permitted by section 825.1035 for “unascertainable respondents,” and the rule forms now recognize that option.
Unascertainable respondent: As defined by the session law, a person whose identity cannot be determined and who has communicated with the vulnerable adult in ways that make tracing impractical (e.g., anonymous or shielded online or telephonic communications).
Ex parte temporary injunction: An order issued without first hearing from the respondent, permitted when there is an immediate and present danger and other injunctive standards are met. The forms continue to require detailed judicial findings supporting any ex parte issuance and set a prompt full hearing.
Injunction standards maintained: The forms reflect the standard elements—immediacy of danger, irreparable harm, likelihood of success, balance of harms, and public interest—which guide courts in granting or denying temporary and permanent injunctions.
Fast-track rulemaking (Rule 2.140(e)): A process allowing the Florida Supreme Court to swiftly adopt procedural rules to implement new legislation, often without pre-adoption public comment but with a post-adoption comment window.
Confidentiality and minimization (Rules 2.420 and 2.425): Petitioners are reminded to protect confidential information and minimize sensitive data in filings—important in cases involving vulnerable adults.

7) Practical Guidance for Practitioners

Establishing “unascertainable” status: Be prepared to document why the respondent’s identity cannot be ascertained and why communications make tracing impractical. Preserve evidence (call logs, screenshots, bank alerts, emails, social-media messages, reports to agencies).
Follow section 825.1035’s substitute service steps: The forms now authorize this method; ensure your service complies with the statute’s specific requirements. Reflect the method accurately in the certificate of service.
Support ex parte relief when warranted: Provide detailed affidavits addressing the temporary injunction factors, imminent harm, irreparable injury, and public interest. The forms require factual specificity.
Asset protection planning: If seeking asset freezes, identify financial institutions, accounts, and critical expenses that should continue notwithstanding a freeze. The forms include structured fields to facilitate precise orders.
Mandatory reporting: The petition form reiterates the duty under section 415.1034, Florida Statutes, to report suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation to the Central Abuse Hotline. Confirm compliance in the petition.
Be mindful of service and enforcement language: Orders state they are enforceable statewide and reference section 901.15(6) for arrest upon violations. Ensure service documentation is complete to facilitate enforcement.
Comment period logistics: Those wishing to comment must file by November 12, 2025, and serve the Committee Chair and Bar Liaison as the opinion directs. Attorneys should use the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal; nonlawyers may use the portal or file by mail/hand-delivery.

8) Broader Legal Significance

This decision exemplifies the coordinated interplay of the Legislature’s substantive policymaking and the judiciary’s procedural implementation. It also demonstrates the Court’s responsiveness to emergent harms facilitated by digital anonymity. By expressly embracing substitute service for unascertainable respondents in this narrow but critical protective context, Florida lowers a procedural barrier that previously could have allowed anonymous exploiters to evade timely injunctive relief simply by concealing their identities.

At the same time, the Court’s continued emphasis on due process—notice, opportunity to be heard, and the traditional injunction standards—maintains the constitutional balance between necessary protection and fair adjudication. The opinion’s uniform forms and immediate effect promote speed, clarity, and consistency across Florida’s circuits.

Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court’s amendment to Rule 5.920 establishes a clear procedural pathway to serve orders and injunctions on unascertainable respondents through substitute service, as authorized by section 825.1035. The change strengthens Florida’s protective framework for vulnerable adults by addressing the realities of modern, often anonymous, exploitation, while preserving due process and the established standards for injunctive relief. Because the forms are the frontline tools in these cases, embedding the substitute-service option directly in them will have an outsized, practical impact: enabling quicker, more effective relief and reducing the risk of asset dissipation before courts can act. This is a targeted, timely, and legally sound step forward in Florida’s continuing effort to shield vulnerable adults from exploitation.