Modernizing Florida Civil Practice: Clarified E-Filing/E-Service in Summons, Enhanced Pleading Requirements for Chapter 82 Possession Actions, and Plain-Language Updates to Rule 1.442

Modernizing Florida Civil Practice: Clarified E-Filing/E-Service in Summons, Enhanced Pleading Requirements for Chapter 82 Possession Actions, and Plain-Language Updates to Rule 1.442

Introduction

On November 13, 2025, the Supreme Court of Florida adopted amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 (Proposals for Settlement) and two widely used forms: Form 1.902 (Summons) and Form 1.938 (Unlawful Detainer; Forcible Entry; and Unlawful Entry Complaint). The amendments flow from a report of The Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee, were circulated for comment, and were slightly refined in response to a single public comment. The changes, effective January 1, 2026 at 12:01 a.m., are largely clarifying and user-focused, with notable practical consequences:

  • Summons: clear direction that defendants may file responses via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal or with the clerk; a requirement that written responses include an e-mail address for service unless excused; and explicit referral to The Florida Bar’s Lawyer Referral Service and legal aid listings.
  • Chapter 82 possession actions: a more detailed pleading form requiring the legal description and address (if available), the manner of the defendant’s possession, and the plaintiff’s ownership or other entitlement to possession, with distinct boxes for unlawful detention, forcible entry, and unlawful entry.
  • Proposals for settlement: principally plain-language modernization and organizational refinements that preserve existing timing and content requirements while continuing to discourage technical traps, including the continued non-application of Rule 2.514(b) to the 30-day acceptance period.

Parties involved include the Civil Procedure Rules Committee (as petitioner) and a single commenter, with the Court adopting the revisions as further refined by the Committee. The opinion is per curiam and unanimous.

Summary of the Opinion

  • Authority and process: The Court exercised its rulemaking authority under article V, section 2(a) of the Florida Constitution and Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.140(b)(1). One public comment was received; the Committee revised its proposal accordingly; the Court adopted the revised text.
  • Form 1.902 (Summons):
    • Confirms a defendant may file a written response either electronically via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal (MyFLCourtAccess.com) or by filing a paper response with the clerk of court.
    • Requires a defendant’s written response to include an e-mail address for service, unless excused from e-service under Rule 2.516 (with reference to Form 2.601 for self-represented litigants seeking an e-service exemption).
    • Directs defendants seeking counsel to The Florida Bar’s Lawyer Referral Service and legal aid programs listed on the Bar’s website.
    • Retains special response time for the State and certain state actors (40 days generally; 30 days when suit is brought under section 768.28, Florida Statutes).
  • Form 1.938 (Unlawful Detainer; Forcible Entry; and Unlawful Entry Complaint):
    • Requires plaintiffs to plead both the legal description and street address of the property (including unit number if applicable), if available.
    • Requires pleading how the defendant obtained possession, whether plaintiff is the owner, and if not, how plaintiff is nevertheless entitled to possession.
    • Differentiates among unlawful detention (including detention after consent was withdrawn), forcible entry, and unlawful entry, tracking Chapter 82’s distinct theories.
    • Reiterates that the form is not for residential tenancies (i.e., Chapter 83 evictions).
  • Rule 1.442 (Proposals for Settlement):
    • Plain-language edits (e.g., “shall” to “must” or “may”), organizational polishing, and consistency with the Court’s drafting guidelines (AOSC22-78).
    • Preserves the 90-day earliest service window and the 45-day latest service relative to trial/docket start; preserves the 30-day acceptance period and the explicit non-application of Rule 2.514(b) to that period; confirms that oral communications do not constitute acceptance/rejection.
    • Retains content requirements, including identification of the applicable Florida law and whether attorneys’ fees are included and part of the legal claim.
    • Maintains the vicarious/derivative liability apportionment exception for joint proposals and the good-faith factors relevant to sanction awards.
  • Effective date and finality: The amendments take effect January 1, 2026, and a motion for rehearing will not alter that date.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

  • Article V, section 2(a), Florida Constitution: Vests the Supreme Court of Florida with authority to adopt rules for practice and procedure in all courts. This is the foundational source of the Court’s rulemaking power invoked here.
  • Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.140(b)(1): Governs the process for proposing, publishing, commenting on, and adopting rule amendments. The Committee proceeded under this rule; the Court published the proposal and adopted the revised language after comment.
  • In re Guidelines for Rules Submissions, AOSC22-78 (Fla. Oct. 24, 2022): The Court’s administrative order encouraging plain-language drafting and stylistic consistency in rule text. The visible shift from “shall” to “must” or “may,” and other housekeeping changes, align with these guidelines.
  • Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.514(b): The time-computation rule for deadlines measured from service. The Court expressly reaffirms that it does not apply to the 30-day acceptance period for proposals for settlement under Rule 1.442(f)(1).
  • Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525: Sets the timing for serving motions for attorneys’ fees and costs. Rule 1.442(g) ties sanctions motions to Rule 1.525’s procedure.
  • Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.516 and Form 2.601: Govern e-service, including the possibility of exempting self-represented litigants from e-service with an approved form. These are incorporated into the updated summons instructions.
  • Chapter 82 and section 51.011, Florida Statutes: Chapter 82 codifies forcible entry, unlawful entry, and unlawful detention actions; section 51.011 provides summary procedure. Form 1.938 expressly pleads an action under Chapter 82 and section 51.011.
  • Section 768.28, Florida Statutes: Sovereign immunity waiver statute. The summons form retains special response times for suits involving state defendants, including the 30-day response when suit is brought under section 768.28.

Legal Reasoning and Drafting Choices

Although rule amendments are not rendered through adversarial adjudication, the Court’s reasoning emerges from the text, explanatory notes, and the administrative order on drafting:

  • Enhancing clarity and access to justice in Form 1.902:
    • Directly telling defendants they may respond via the e-Portal or with the clerk resolves confusion, especially among self-represented litigants and in counties with varying clerk guidance.
    • Requiring inclusion of an e-mail address for service aligns initial case intake with statewide e-service norms, reducing downstream disputes and delays. The simultaneous reference to Rule 2.516 and Form 2.601 ensures that litigants without reliable e-mail access know how to seek an exemption.
    • Referencing The Florida Bar’s Lawyer Referral Service and online legal aid listings moves beyond outdated “phone book” references, modernizing access to counsel information.
  • Preserving the integrity of proposals for settlement under Rule 1.442:
    • Plain-language edits do not alter substance but decrease ambiguity, emphasizing the mandatory or permissive nature of obligations (“must” versus “may”).
    • Maintaining the bright-line 30-day acceptance period, insulated from Rule 2.514(b), supports predictability and prevents method-of-service extensions from undermining the statute’s fee-shifting incentive structure.
    • Retaining content elements—such as stating whether attorneys’ fees are included and whether fees are part of the legal claim—keeps the rule aligned with Florida’s strict compliance jurisprudence, reducing grounds for invalidation.
    • Continuing the vicarious/derivative liability exception promotes settlement in multi-party cases without forcing artificial apportionments that do not reflect the underlying liability structure.
  • Strengthening pleadings for Chapter 82 possession actions via Form 1.938:
    • Requiring both the legal description and the street address (if available) increases precision, which matters in swift summary proceedings under section 51.011.
    • Forcing plaintiffs to identify how the defendant came to possess the property and the precise theory (unlawful detention, forcible entry, unlawful entry) calibrates the case to the correct statutory elements and defenses, curbing misuse of Chapter 82 in landlord-tenant contexts and aiding judicial triage.
    • Explicitly requiring a statement of ownership or alternative entitlement ensures that standing and possessory right are framed from the outset.
  • Global consistency with AOSC22-78:
    • The opinion notes that changes “are made throughout in accord with” the Court’s guidelines for rule submissions. This includes consistent terminology, simplified syntax, and removal of archaic phrasing—incremental but meaningful improvements in readability and compliance.

Impact on Practice and Future Cases

  • Summons practice and clerk operations:
    • Clerks and practitioners should promptly update summons templates to incorporate the e-Portal option, e-service e-mail requirement, and the legal aid/referral language. Doing so will reduce motion practice over defective summonses and improve litigant compliance.
    • Self-represented defendants will be better informed about filing options and e-service obligations, which should reduce defaults and procedural missteps.
  • Chapter 82 pleading and case management:
    • Courts can expect more uniform and complete initial pleadings in unlawful detainer/entry cases, facilitating quicker determinations under summary procedure and fewer amendments or dismissals for insufficient allegations.
    • The clearer separation of theories may reduce attempts to use Chapter 82 as a shortcut for residential evictions or to litigate title disputes more appropriately handled via ejectment or quiet title actions.
  • Proposals for settlement:
    • While largely stylistic, the continued emphasis on strict timing and content requirements—particularly the inapplicability of Rule 2.514(b) to the acceptance period—preserves traps for the unwary. Docketing systems should treat the 30-day window as absolute regardless of service method.
    • By requiring identification of “the applicable Florida law,” the rule remains flexible for fee-shifting beyond section 768.79 when authorized, while keeping drafters focused on clarity that can withstand strict-compliance scrutiny.
  • Access to counsel:
    • Directing litigants to the Bar’s Lawyer Referral Service and online legal aid resources is a practical access-to-justice enhancement that could modestly increase early attorney involvement and reduce defaults and pro se burdens.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Proposal for Settlement (Rule 1.442):
    • What it is: A formal offer to resolve a case for a stated amount and terms, triggering potential fee-shifting under applicable Florida law if rejected and certain outcome thresholds are met.
    • Key timing: May be served after 90 days; must be served at least 45 days before trial/docket start; deemed rejected unless accepted within 30 days of service; Rule 2.514(b) does not add extra days to this 30-day window.
    • Key contents: Identify the Florida law under which the proposal is made; state that it resolves all damages otherwise awardable in a final judgment; state whether attorneys’ fees are included and whether fees are part of the legal claim; specify amounts/terms attributable to each party in joint proposals (unless a party is only vicariously/derivatively liable).
  • Vicarious/Derivative Liability Exception:
    • When a party is only vicariously, constructively, derivatively, or technically liable, a joint proposal need not apportion the offer to that party. Acceptance preserves rights to contribution/indemnity. This simplifies proposals in, for example, employer-employee or principal-agent contexts.
  • Summary Procedure (section 51.011, Florida Statutes):
    • A fast-track process applicable to specific actions (including Chapter 82 possession suits), with compressed deadlines and limited pleadings. Complete initial filings are crucial to proceed efficiently under this mechanism.
  • Chapter 82 Theories:
    • Unlawful Detention: The defendant’s initial possession may have been consensual, but continued possession is without consent or after consent was withdrawn on a specific date.
    • Forcible Entry: The defendant obtained possession using force or non-peaceable means, even if initially “authorized” by a person with possessory rights.
    • Unlawful Entry: The defendant entered without legal authority or consent, but not necessarily with force.
  • E-Filing versus E-Service:
    • E-Filing: Submitting documents to the court electronically through the state’s portal (MyFLCourtAccess.com). The updated summons makes clear that defendants may e-file or file in person/paper with the clerk.
    • E-Service: Serving documents on other parties via e-mail under Rule 2.516. Parties must generally provide an e-mail address for service; self-represented litigants can seek exemption using Form 2.601 if appropriate.
  • State Defendant Response Times:
    • Most defendants have 20 days to serve written defenses. If the State or a state agency/official (in an official capacity) is a defendant, the time is 40 days unless the suit is brought under section 768.28—in which case the time is 30 days. The summons form preserves this longstanding nuance.

Practice Pointers and Checklists

For Civil Litigators (Rule 1.442)

  • Calendar the 90-day minimum before serving a proposal and the 45-day pre-trial/docket latest date. Build in a margin for continuances or docket shifts.
  • Do not rely on Rule 2.514(b) to extend the 30-day acceptance period—no extra days apply regardless of service method.
  • In joint proposals, apportion to each offeree unless the offeree’s liability is solely vicarious/derivative/constructive/technical.
  • State whether attorneys’ fees are included and whether fees are part of the claim. Identify the applicable Florida law (commonly section 768.79).
  • Keep proposals off the docket unless and until enforcement/sanctions are at issue. Use Rule 1.525 for fee motions.

For Plaintiffs in Chapter 82 Actions (Form 1.938)

  • Identify the correct theory:
    • Unlawful detention if consent existed but was revoked (state the date consent was withdrawn).
    • Forcible entry if entry and possession were obtained by force or not “peaceable, easy, or open.”
    • Unlawful entry if entry lacked legal authority or consent, without necessarily involving force.
  • Plead both the legal description and the street address (including unit), if available.
  • State whether you are the owner. If not, clearly articulate your possessory entitlement (e.g., purchaser in possession, personal representative, holder of superior right of possession).
  • Remember: This form is not for residential tenancies. Use Chapter 83 eviction procedures for landlord-tenant disputes.

For Defendants Receiving a Summons (Form 1.902)

  • You have 20 days to serve written defenses (or 40/30 days for certain state defendants). A phone call does not count—you must file a written response.
  • You may file:
    • Electronically through MyFLCourtAccess.com, or
    • By delivering a paper response to the clerk of court.
  • Include your e-mail address for e-service in your response unless the clerk excuses you under Rule 2.516. If you need an exemption, file Form 2.601.
  • If you file directly with the clerk, also send a copy to the plaintiff/plaintiff’s attorney listed in the summons.
  • If you need a lawyer, consult The Florida Bar’s Lawyer Referral Service or search for “legal aid” on floridabar.org for potential free assistance.

Related Background Jurisprudence (Context, Not Cited in the Opinion)

Florida’s proposals-for-settlement regime has long been interpreted under a strict-compliance framework. While the Court’s current amendments are largely stylistic, practitioners should continue to draft with precision in light of decisions such as:

  • State Farm v. Nichols (Fla. 2006): Emphasized clarity in release terms so an offeree can fully evaluate a proposal.
  • Kuhajda v. Borden Dairy Co. (Fla. 2016): Held that failure to state whether attorneys’ fees are part of the legal claim does not invalidate a proposal when fees are not sought by the pleadings.
  • Various district court decisions: Reinforce that ambiguities are construed against the offeror, and that joint proposals must be carefully structured unless the vicarious-liability exception applies.

These cases underpin the continued importance of the content requirements retained in Rule 1.442.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Florida’s amendments are a pragmatic modernization of civil practice. On the summons side, defendants are given clearer instructions on how to respond and how to comply with e-service norms, with improved signposting to legal help. For Chapter 82 possession actions, the new complaint form compels specificity that aligns allegations with statutory elements, which should produce more efficient summary proceedings and fewer misfiled tenancy cases. As to proposals for settlement, the Court preserves the strict timing and content architecture—especially the inapplicability of Rule 2.514(b) to the acceptance period—while advancing plain-language clarity and consistency.

Effective January 1, 2026, these updates will influence everyday practice across Florida trial courts. The key takeaways are:

  • Update your summons and Chapter 82 complaint templates now; ensure clerk and portal instructions are correctly communicated to litigants.
  • Continue to draft proposals for settlement with exactness, mindful that the 30-day acceptance window is immovable and content omissions can be fatal.
  • Leverage the access-to-justice enhancements in the new summons form to reduce defaults and improve early case management.

Although limited in scope, these amendments collectively advance clarity, uniformity, and accessibility in Florida’s civil docket.

Case Details

Comments