Florida’s courts are known for their heavy caseloads, particularly in complex commercial, family, and civil disputes. To provide litigants with an alternative route that combines efficiency with due process, Florida law allows parties to resolve disputes through a mechanism known as private trial resolution.
Authority and Procedures
Codified in Florida Statutes §§ 44.104–44.106, this procedure permits disputing parties, by mutual agreement, to submit their case to a privately selected judge rather than proceeding in the traditional court system.
Under the statute, the parties may jointly stipulate in writing to have their dispute resolved by a member of the Florida Bar who has been licensed for at least five years. This individual serves as the “trial resolution judge.”
Unlike mediators or arbitrators, who facilitate negotiations or issue awards under different legal frameworks, a trial resolution judge functions in an adjudicatory capacity almost identical to that of a sitting judge. The proceedings closely mirror a bench trial, with evidence presented, witnesses examined, and rulings entered on the record.
Judgment and Right to Appeal
Once the private trial concludes and a decision is rendered, the judgment is filed with the appropriate circuit court. At that point, it carries the same weight and enforceability as a traditional court judgment. The statute also provides a narrow appellate path: appeals from a private trial resolution are directed to the appropriate district court of appeal, ensuring that parties retain a safeguard of judicial oversight.
Pros and Cons
The benefits of this process are clear. Parties gain flexibility by choosing their decision-maker, scheduling trial dates without the delays of crowded dockets, and often resolving matters in a more efficient, confidential environment. Businesses may find particular value in the ability to keep sensitive disputes out of the public spotlight.
Still, private trial resolution is not suited to every circumstance. It requires consent from both parties, involves additional costs for compensating the private judge, and may not be appropriate in cases raising significant public policy considerations.
Parties should exercise caution about the breadth of matters that would be subject to private trial resolution. In Andria Pardes, etc., et al. v. Jill Pardes, etc., No. 3D24-1947, District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District (Jan. 2, 2025), the Third District Court of Appeal held that a Florida trial court lacked authority to take over post-divorce attorney’s-fee litigation that the parties had contractually assigned—and the trial court had ratified—to a private judge under section 44.104.
The parties’ agreement gave the private judge full authority to resolve all disputes, including fee matters, and the appellate court ruled that this delegated jurisdiction continued even though the private judge’s prior fee-entitlement order did not expressly reserve jurisdiction to determine the amount. The court explained that a reservation of jurisdiction to set fees is presumed and that the trial court may not supplant the private judge’s role. Accordingly, it granted a writ of prohibition, directing the trial court to cease interfering and leaving the fee motions to be decided by the private judge.
Conclusion
For Florida litigants seeking a balance between privacy, efficiency, and binding adjudication, the private trial resolution statute represents a powerful but carefully tailored option within the state’s broader commitment to alternative dispute resolution.
Discover more from A Lawyer In Florida
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
