Re(1): Florida Supreme Court Oral Arguments IP: 72.91.173.97 Posted on February 10, 2014 at 11:45:29 PM by Jeffrey L Smith
After watching the Florida Supreme Court hearing several times, it is my interpretation that the primary issue in determining who pays attorney’s fees is dependant upon the Supreme Court’s decision as to what was the intent of the legislature when it created statutes 175 and 185. Both parties made plausible arguments to support their position. If the court rules strictly on what is contained in statutes 175 and 185 and the 13th check contract the ruling will go in favor of the pension board and uphold the 2nd DCA ruling. If the court is willing to look beyond the general construct of statutes 175 and 185 and apply the general construct to special laws and contracts they will rule in favor of the prevailing party. The judges left me with the impression that they could write an opinion to go either way. I believe the court will uphold the 2nd DCA ruling on the grounds that the prevailing party fees provided in state statute does not apply to special contracts unless it is specified in the special contract. The 13th check contract does not contain any such language. The court is well aware that if the court were to over turn the 2nd DCA it would be punishing all members and pensioners because the money that the pension board would have to pay out for attorney fees is lost pension revenue. The argument that the pension board has insurance to cover such a loss is not a consideration for the court when they make their ruling. When you sue the pension board in a class action law suit you are suing yourself and other members and it will never end well for our pension. Replies: