Introduction

In a consolidated rules decision issued November 6, 2025, in SC2023-1609 and SC2024-0294, the Supreme Court of Florida amended two cornerstone provisions of the Florida Rules of Traffic Court and declined others. Acting on proposals from The Florida Bar’s Traffic Court Rules Committee (with adoption recommended by the Bar’s Board of Governors) and after publishing for comment, the Court:

• Adopted amendments to Rule 6.340, replacing a single “Affidavit of Defense or Admission and Waiver of Appearance” with two dedicated, user-friendly forms: one for “Plea of Guilty/No Contest and No Request For Hearing” and another for “Plea of Not Guilty and Request For Hearing.”
• Adopted amendments to Rule 6.480, eliminating the need for a motion to obtain time to pay and establishing a mandatory minimum of 60 days to pay any penalty imposed.
• Declined to adopt proposed changes to Rules 6.445 (Discovery; Infractions Only) and 6.455 (Amendments and Voluntary Dismissals by Issuing Officers).

The Court’s authority to act derives from article V, section 2(a) of the Florida Constitution and Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.140(b)(1). The amendments, accompanied by new Committee Notes and minor technical edits consistent with Administrative Order AOSC22-78 (In re Guidelines for Rules Submissions), take effect January 1, 2026, at 12:01 a.m. The Court expressly provides that a motion for rehearing does not alter the effective date.

One public comment was submitted by attorney Steven D. Rubin; the Committee responded. After review, the Court adopted the Committee’s proposals in part, pointing the traffic-infractions process toward clearer, more accessible forms and a fairer payment timeline for self-represented litigants.

Summary of the Opinion

• Rules amended: 6.340 and 6.480.
• Rules not amended: 6.445 and 6.455 (proposals declined without textual alterations).
• Rule 6.340 (Affidavit/Admissions) now deploys two separate, simplified forms:
  • Sample Plea of Guilty/No Contest and No Request For Hearing.
  • Sample Plea of Not Guilty and Request For Hearing (with three appearance options).
• Rule 6.480 (Payment of Penalty) eliminates the defendant’s need to move for time to pay and increases the minimum payment deadline from 30 to 60 days, tying nonpayment after that deadline (or any further extensions) to “failure to comply” under section 318.15, Florida Statutes.
• New Committee Notes explain the rationale: to clarify choices for pro se defendants and to reduce unnecessary driver’s license suspensions caused by short payment windows and the need to know to request extensions.
• Effective date: January 1, 2026; rehearing will not stay effectiveness.

Analysis

Authorities and References Cited

• Article V, section 2(a), Florida Constitution: Establishes the Court’s rulemaking authority.
• Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.140(b)(1): Sets the procedural framework for rules proposals and amendments.
• Administrative Order AOSC22-78 (In re Guidelines for Rules Submissions): Stylistic and formatting guidance prompting, for example, the shift from “shall” to “must” and clarifying usage such as “in place of” for “in lieu of.”
• Section 318.15, Florida Statutes: Governs consequences for failure to comply with penalties and court directives in traffic cases, including driver’s license suspension; directly referenced in amended Rule 6.480.

Legal Reasoning and Rationale

Although the Court’s opinion is concise, its reasoning is apparent from the adopted text and Committee Notes:

• Access to Justice and Clarity for Pro Se Defendants: The Court embraces the Committee’s redesign of Rule 6.340 forms to explicitly separate pathways for resolving traffic infractions:
  • Guilty/No Contest without a hearing, enabling streamlined resolution where the defendant opts to waive appearance.
  • Not Guilty with a requested hearing, while allowing the defendant to choose among appearing personally (including virtually, where available), filing a sworn statement and not appearing, or neither appearing nor filing a statement.
  The forms speak plainly about voluntariness, consequences, and the judge or hearing officer’s discretion to adjudicate guilt and impose sentence. They also standardize expectations regarding notarization, the possibility of perjury prosecution for false statements, and timing requirements for submissions.
• Fairness and Uniformity in Time to Pay: Amended Rule 6.480 mandates, without any motion by the defendant, a payment window of at least 60 days—a change from a 30-day minimum and from a system that previously required litigants to know to ask for more time. The Committee Note is explicit that many pro se litigants did not understand to move for deferred payment, with the result that short deadlines led to avoidable license suspensions under section 318.15. The rule now establishes a uniform floor and preserves the ability to grant further extensions.
• Administrative Consistency and Readability: The opinion underscores minor technical edits to improve clarity and conform with AOSC22-78, reflecting the Court’s ongoing emphasis on plain language and consistency in rule drafting.
• Status Quo Preserved for Discovery and Officer Amendments: By declining to amend Rules 6.445 and 6.455, the Court leaves existing discovery practice and issuing officers’ amendment/dismissal authority undisturbed, signaling that the record did not justify changes in those areas at this time.

Rule-by-Rule Discussion

Rule 6.340: From a Single Affidavit to Two Purpose-Built Plea Forms

The prior “Affidavit of Defense or Admission and Waiver of Appearance” form is deleted. In its place:

• Sample Plea of Guilty/No Contest and No Request For Hearing:
  • Purpose: Allows defendants to resolve the case without a hearing, waiving appearance and entry of further settings unless the State or court requests otherwise.
  • Content highlights: A clear explanation of what a “no contest” plea means; advisement that no statement is required; acknowledgment that adjudication and sentence are within the judge/hearing officer’s discretion; and a warning that material misstatements may lead to separate criminal prosecution.
  • Formalities: Requires notarization; includes name/address/phone; space for an optional explanatory statement; and provisions for a parent/guardian to sign if the defendant is under 18.
• Sample Plea of Not Guilty and Request For Hearing:
  • Three options after requesting a hearing:
    • Appear personally (or virtually, if available).
    • Submit a sworn statement of defense and not appear.
    • Not submit a statement and not appear (leaving the decision to the evidence adduced by the State and any witnesses at the hearing).
  • Sworn Statement option: If chosen, the defendant may attach documents, photos, or other exhibits; the decision will rest on sworn testimony of witnesses, other evidence, and the defendant’s sworn statement.
  • Deadlines: The forms emphasize that any affidavit must reach the clerk at least five business days before the hearing to be considered.
  • Formalities: Requires notarization and includes a perjury warning; minors must have a parent/guardian sign.

Additional text clarifies that an attorney may represent a defendant in the defendant’s absence without requiring an affidavit of defense, provided the attorney files a notice of appearance. The attorney may enter pleas, try the case, and examine witnesses. If, however, a represented defendant chooses to file an affidavit, it must be signed and notarized—underscoring that unsworn statements by the defendant are not a substitute for testimony.

The rule also retains the court’s discretion to require a bond before accepting an affidavit in place of appearance, with reasonable notice to the defendant if a bond is required.

Rule 6.480: Automatic Minimum 60 Days to Pay; No Motion Required

The amended rule now provides that an “official” (i.e., the judge or traffic hearing officer) must allow a reasonable amount of time, no less than 60 days from imposition of penalty, before requiring payment. Two additional features are important:

• Extensions remain available: The 60-day period is a floor; further extensions can be granted.
• Failure to comply after the deadline: Nonpayment after the deadline or any further extension constitutes “failure to comply” for purposes of section 318.15, triggering consequences like license suspension.

The Committee Note explicitly ties this change to reducing unnecessary license suspensions, recognizing that many pro se litigants do not know to move for additional time under the former rule. By making the 60-day window automatic, the Court advances uniform statewide fairness and reduces administrative burdens from suspension-related issues.

Editorial note: The opinion’s narrative states that the word “deferred” is deleted from the title of Rule 6.480; the appendix header still reads “DEFERRED PAYMENT OF PENALTY IMPOSED.” This appears to be a scrivener’s inconsistency. Practitioners should consult the official published rules text as updated by the Clerk; the intent is plainly to retitle the rule to reflect that payment time is not a special “deferred” procedure but the default minimum timeline.

Rules 6.445 and 6.455: Proposals Declined

The Court explicitly declines to adopt the Committee’s proposed amendments to:

• Rule 6.445 (Discovery; Infractions Only).
• Rule 6.455 (Amendments and Voluntary Dismissals by Issuing Officers).

The opinion does not detail the content of the proposed changes, and thus the existing text of both rules remains in effect unchanged. The takeaway is that discovery practice in civil traffic infractions and the scope of issuing officers’ amendment/dismissal authority are preserved as-is.

Practical Impact and Forward-Looking Considerations

• For self-represented defendants:
  • Clearer, simpler forms that segregate “no hearing” pleas from “hearing requested” pleas reduce confusion and inadvertent waivers.
  • An automatic 60-day payment window substantially reduces the risk of unintentionally triggering license suspensions under section 318.15 by missing a short deadline.
  • Explicit guidance on notarization, deadlines (e.g., five business days before the hearing for affidavits), and perjury consequences enhances transparency.
• For defense counsel:
  • Affirmation that counsel may proceed without the client’s presence (with a filed notice of appearance) removes unnecessary affidavit requirements; however, any client’s sworn statement still must be properly notarized.
  • Strategic options expand with the not-guilty form’s clear bifurcation between appearing, submitting a sworn statement, or neither.
• For courts and clerks:
  • Clerk websites, kiosks, and paper packets should be updated to include the two new forms and remove the prior combined affidavit.
  • Docketing practices should reflect the 60-day minimum payment window automatically, eliminating the need to calendar or process “time to pay” motions in the ordinary course.
• For traffic hearing officers and judges:
  • “Official” must uniformly allow at least 60 days for payment; noncompliance standards now attach after that period (or after any further extensions).
  • When affidavits are submitted, the forms’ five-business-day instruction supports advance review; late-filed affidavits may be disregarded consistent with local practice and the forms’ direction.
• Systemic effects:
  • Expected reduction in avoidable license suspensions and associated court and DMV workload (reinstatements, compliance hearings, etc.).
  • More consistent statewide practices, especially important in high-volume civil infraction dockets.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Official: In the Traffic Court Rules, an “official” is the judge or a traffic hearing officer authorized to adjudicate civil traffic infractions.
• Plea types:
  • Guilty: You admit the infraction, and the court may adjudicate you guilty and impose a penalty.
  • No contest: You do not admit or deny the infraction but do not contest it; the court may still find you guilty and impose a penalty.
  • Not guilty: You dispute the infraction and request a hearing where the State must prove the violation by the applicable standard.
• Affidavit / Sworn statement: A written statement made under oath and notarized; false statements can be prosecuted as perjury.
• Appearance by communication technology: Appearing remotely (for example, by video) if available in the jurisdiction; the rule recognizes this as an appearance equivalent to appearing in person.
• Bond before accepting an affidavit: The court may require a deposit or bond before accepting an affidavit in place of personal appearance; the defendant must receive reasonable notice if a bond is required.
• Failure to comply (section 318.15, Florida Statutes): Not paying a penalty or otherwise failing to comply by the set deadline can result in driver’s license suspension and other consequences.
• Five-business-day filing instruction: The new forms direct defendants to ensure affidavits reach the clerk at least five business days before the hearing; late filings risk not being considered.

Implementation Checklist

• Effective January 1, 2026: Courts and clerks should update forms, websites, and self-help materials; remove the old combined affidavit form.
• Payment processing: Configure systems to default to a minimum 60-day payment deadline upon imposition of penalty; train staff that motions for “time to pay” are no longer required.
• Notarization access: Ensure defendants can access notarization (in person or via approved remote online notarization where available) and understand the requirement.
• Hearing scheduling and notices: Align notices to reflect appearance options, remote-appearance availability in the jurisdiction, and affidavit submission timelines.
• Audit rule captions: Given the opinion’s stated intent to remove “deferred” from the title of Rule 6.480, verify the official published caption and update internal references accordingly.

Textual Note on Rule 6.480 Caption

The opinion’s body states that “deferred” is deleted from the title of Rule 6.480 to reflect the automatic nature of the time-to-pay accommodation. The appendix, however, still displays “DEFERRED PAYMENT OF PENALTY IMPOSED.” This appears to be a clerical discrepancy. For operational purposes, the substantive text governs, and practitioners should look to the final published version of the rule following this opinion for the correct captioning.

Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court’s 2025 amendments modernize and humanize civil traffic infraction practice in two key ways. First, Rule 6.340 replaces a one-size-fits-all affidavit with two purpose-built forms that clearly separate “no-hearing” pleas from “hearing-requested” pleas, articulate options for appearance, and highlight notarization, timing, and perjury consequences—changes directly aimed at helping pro se litigants navigate the process. Second, Rule 6.480’s automatic, minimum 60-day payment window eliminates the prior need for a motion and is expected to reduce the churn of license suspensions caused by short deadlines and lack of legal sophistication.

At the same time, by declining changes to Rules 6.445 and 6.455, the Court preserves existing discovery practice and the current contours of issuing officers’ amendment and dismissal authority. The overall thrust of the opinion is practical and incremental: standardize and simplify where the benefits to fairness and administrative efficiency are most obvious, while maintaining stability in areas where the need for change is less clear.

Effective January 1, 2026, these amendments will shape daily practice in Florida’s busiest courts. The mandated payment floor and clarified affidavit/plea pathways should produce more predictable outcomes, fewer preventable suspensions, and improved access to justice for unrepresented motorists statewide.