FLORIDA BAR--RULES--AMENDMENT--TRUST ACCOUNTS. The Court amended Rule 5-1.1 (Trust Accounts) as proposed by the Florida Bar to provide that banks and other financial institutions participating in the Interest on Trust Account (IOTA) program must "pay, net of all fees and charges assessed by the eligible financial institution, the Wall Street Journal Prime Rate in effect on the first business day of each month less 300 basis points (3.00%) with a floor of 0.25% and a ceiling of 1.50%."
VIEW OPINION

SMALL CLAIMS RULES--AMENDMENT. Proposed amendments to Florida Small Claims Rule 7.070 (Method of Service of Process) were adopted, with modifications. Significantly, the Court "adopted a new subdivision (b) (Summons; Time Limit), which, in alignment with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j) (Process; Summons; Time Limit), provides a 120-day time limit for the service of the initial process and initial pleading on the party. If service is not made within 120 days, the court, on its own initiative after notice or on motion, must direct that service be effected within a specified time or must dismiss the action without prejudice or drop that party.' " An additional 120 days will be provided to effectuate service if requested by the movant; "provided, however, that the court may, if leave is sought to add a party after a pretrial conference convened under rule 7.090(b)(2), require a showing of good cause for the delay, and order that service be effected within a reasonable time." The Court also adopted a new subdivision (c) (Waiver of Service of Process), requiring waivers of service of process be reduced to writing in the record.
VIEW OPINION

PUBLIC UTILITIES--GAS--RATEMAKING--RESERVE BALANCE. The Court affirmed the Public Service Commission's approval of a gas utility's use of the Reserve Surplus Amortization and Mechanism-Adjusted Depreciation Parameters (RSAM-ADP) and the Reserve Surplus Amortization Mechanism (RSAM). In affirming the Commission's orders, the Court rejected the Office of Public Counsel's arguments that approval of the RSAM-ADP was inconsistent with the Depreciation Rule, and that both the approval of the RSAM-ADP and RSAM were inconsistent with the Commission's official policies and prior practices. The Commission's approval of both measures was supported by competent substantial evidence.
VIEW OPINION