Loading…
3 verbatim mandatory provisions from SRCAD 2019-04 Reopening of Closed Family Law Cases.
First Judicial Circuit. Check the order's own effective and rescission dates before relying on it. Procedural information only; not legal advice.
Verbatim from the order's own text layer, harvested 2026-07-24; whitespace normalised only. No OCR was used. Only sentences containing mandatory language (shall, must, may not, no later than, within N) are reproduced — the full document is in custody and is the controlling text. • REOPENING OF CLOSED FAMILY LAW CASES WHEREAS, it is established this directive shall apply to any person who qualifies as a “party” to a family law matter; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to ensure every party to a case is properly notified of motions and notices of hearing filed with the Court and the reopening of said case; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Rule 2.516, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, the undersigned judge has the authority to direct the service of pleadings and documents filed, it is ORDERED: 1. • In all cases wherein a party has filed a motion which reopens a family law case, the filing party must obtain a hearing date and have both said motion and Notice of Hearing personally served on the opposing party at least five (5) days before the scheduled hearing. • A return of service of the motion and Notice of Hearing must be filed in court file.
REOPENING OF CLOSED FAMILY LAW CASES WHEREAS, it is established this directive shall apply to any person who qualifies as a “party” to a family law matter; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to ensure every party to a case is properly notified of motions and notices of hearing filed with the Court and the reopening of said case; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Rule 2.516, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, the undersigned judge has the authority to direct the service of pleadings and documents filed, it is ORDERED: 1.
Reviewer note: Document sha256: 7d47b8d53e498e83c3f553f939e7f5327ef1cae1e78003d82cbea4d720ae4ad0 (39927 bytes). BenchPath harvested this circuit itself because no research corpus existed for it. Extraction is conservative: mandatory-language sentences only, so this rule is a faithful subset of the order, never a summary of it.
Judge Costello's AI section simply restates amended Rule 2.515(d)(2) — the post-AOSC26-12 statewide standard — a compliance model, not a local mandate: signers certify cited authorities exist and are accurately cited, with the rule's own sanctions.
The strongest in-the-wild confirmation of the 2026 statewide AI rule: Judge Bantner's page expressly states his prior AI requirements are REMOVED because of the May 28, 2026 amendment of Rule 2.515 — signing a filing now itself certifies the authorities exist and are accurately cited.