← Case library
3rd DCAAugust 31, 2022Affirmed⭐ Notable

Miami Dade College v. Nader + Museu I, LLLP

Case No. 21-1440

Miami Dade College sought over $200,000 as a 'special service charge' under section 119.07(4)(d) for costs (including outside counsel fees) incurred in responding to a public records request that ripened into mandamus litigation. The Third DCA affirmed the denial, holding that MDC never provided the requester with an estimate or invoice of anticipated production costs before producing the records, contrary to both its own Procedure 2107 and section 119.07(4)'s requirement that production be conditioned 'upon payment of the fee prescribed by law.'

Key facts

  • Miami Dade College sought to recover over $200,000 as a special service charge under section 119.07(4)(d) for costs incurred in responding to a public records request, including outside counsel fees.
  • The trial court denied Miami Dade College's request for the special service charge, and the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

This is the Third District's first clear statement that a Chapter 119 agency must front-load its special service charge — an estimate or invoice must precede production, or the charge is lost, even where the litigation… — full analysis with a trial

Best value · free

Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.

  • Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
  • Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
  • Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Start my free 30-day trial → No credit card required
👀 Take a quick tour of the site → 60 seconds · click a real case · no login

Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.