Tot Mr. Iron
Front Mr. Miller
Rea Southwest Florida Water
Mangement District P. 8. 574.05
Zn hio letter addressed to you dated February 13, 1967, Mr.
Clint Schultz, the a*countant for the SWWID, inquired whether
the Clerk of the aCiwuit Court in still entitled to collect a
fee*" for his service in disbursing maney paid into the eourt
registry by the SWtlID pursuant to 1, 8. $74.05.
You will recall that P. 8. $28.24, relating to the eompensa-
tion of the Clerk of the Circuit Court provides in part as follows
"*he compensation of the clerk of the circuit court,
as clerk or recorder, shall be entire by fees and,
unless otherwise provided, shall be as follows
Money, Received Into 'egistry of Court
ad Paying Outs
First $500.00 per cent I--- 1
aach subsequent $1000.00, per cent --l-1/2"
Zt is recognized that funds paid into the registry of the
court without the omurts' sanction, are object to withdrawal by
a depositor and do not become funds in cutodia legis, 1965 Op.
Atty. Gen. 065-95.
In ppp ve 1098 Fia. 547. 147 So. 234, the Florida
Sure me cout aide t e observations
"'he rule is well settled that, when a party litigant,
pursuant to court order, pays into the registry of
the court a an unconditional tender a sun, of money
which he conteads is due by hij to his adversary liti-
gant in a cause pending between them, the title to the
sum passes Lrrevocably to the adversary though he does
not accept it until the conalusion of the litigation
S or at aome other time. If subsequent to payment into
court or recognition by the court the sat is lost or
stolen -he loss aust fall on the litigant to whom
title passes or for whose benefit it was tendered.
the tender in other wvrds becomes a fund in austodia
legis subject to the order of the court or the pleasure
of the depoaltee. (Citatiens). e orle it a ,,
settled by thbae decision that, if funds are paid
into the registry of the court by a stranger or oee
having no right to do so and without the court*'
knowledge or sanction or in such a enner that they
may be withdrawn or their disposition directed at the
will of the depositor, they do not become uands in
.~.-~II. -. ~L_-~-Y
oustodia loegis, sad, i lost under such olvaunm
stance., the loss mst fall an the aMe king the
rPleida Statutes. Chapter 74, provides for proceedings supple-
mental to eaiment dugaln presedings, te purpose of wah is to
provide a suman y method to seoer passesstr o of property for
public purposes peatdig aoademation proseedings. This Act re-
quigre the petition r t to file the rap~lriate court, a declara-
tion of taking, ad parvides for the service of piresoe an the giv-
ntg of notice to aUL inteeted parties. It authorisee the oeort
to designate appwraeers, and provides for a hearing before the
oourt at which the parties may be represened by eou1s and may
produce evidee as toh t he value of the prepgety sought to be cone
demed, and as to whether or not the petitioA er has authority to
take such property. tIe Aet requires the eourt, after taking tosti-
maoy, to sake ooh rdor as it may dom proper to secure the rights
ofo all pLitiam that: t the
of all .ttAf
see 12 ru %ar.III, nothaint boo p, S 0
the last paragrth o5 F. 8. $74.051 prvidt j in part as follows
"tbe court may fix the time within whi and the tea
upon which the d efndantes hall be required to surrender
possession to the petitener. the ordor of taking shall
become effective upen the deposit at the required sI
in the registry of the enrt but if the depoit is not
made within a ty days trm the eat of the order of
taking, the order shall be void ea e no further force
I cannot find any published opinia es t he Attorney general
interpreting or oeastruiag the last eatenoe of P. S. i74.051
which I have underlined above.
In his letter of February 13, 1967* ad esed to you Mr.
Sohultz asserts a
*S understand that these is a l suit with the City
of saraota as the platitiff an# the Clark of the
Circut t ot f that eoaty at the defendant. I
underatead that the plaintiff acbal ed the Clerk has
no legal right to make a "feeo for hiU servit in
disbearsig nae froka the Gert aUtatr. I further
unnSans that the suit wa me by the plaisim m
but has Aeen carried to the Supreme Cort by the
defendants Further, the Attorney Oenr4al is supposed
to have ruUed (asi) that sah diabuareeents by the
court should be mate without charge when made for
a governmetal entity,*
string the registry requirements" of r. S, J#2824, was Opi~non
065-95 wherein he declared$
"We believe that funds paid into the our pursuant
to statutory dlre.tiona (i. o. 770.28, I. 8.) oe in
1the lasto e the court to the asno degree as though
deposited by exprs" court order."
However, saLe i I74.051 zelat" L te smary proedare for
taking possesesi eo peperty pending eoo nation proceedings, e*-
pressly provides$ *'o sum paid Into the rg istry of the aourt, par-
suant to- this aapter, shall be charged vith tmmissions or Joundage,"
San inclined to doubt that the Attorney General would construe the
foregoing provision to permit the laerk of the Circuit Court to
collect a registry tee even though moneys paid into th court pur-
sCa*t to the foregoing status e are apparently funds, *In oustodia
logi t subject to the order of the eourt.* statute seam to
deprive the clerk of the right to any registry fee.
I cannot f ld in the recent advance h ojt, any decision of
the Supreme Court passing on ea appeal froM e a Sroeta County
circuit tourt whieh is in aeor.d with my Introtpretation. otoever.
I will continue looking foi the deisia k to ~ r ih r. Schults refers.
B Soutlhw est Fl4rida
SS6 Water aanageme t District
P. 0. BOX 216
ALFRED A. McKETHAN, Brooksville 33512 CHARLES K. CHEEZEM, St. Petersburg
EDWARD MEDARD, Tampa February 13, 1967 HORACE JONES, Lakeland
THOMAS M. KILGORE, Ocala C. J. KNOWLES, Leesburg
RUFE C. WYSONG, Lake Panasoffkee
E. B. LARKIN, Dade City e Twachtmann, Executive Director
Assistant Treasurer 1
Mr. Myron G. Gibbons, Attorney at Law
Gibbons, Tucker, McEwen, Smith & Cofer
606 Madison Street
Tampa, Florida 33602
Re: Florida Statute #74.05, Sub-paragraph 2
I understand that there is a law suit with the City of Sarasota as the
plaintiff and the Clerk of the Circuit Court of that county as the
defendant. I understand that the plaintiff charged the Clerk has no
legal right to make a "fee" for his service in dis ursing money from
the Court Registry. I further understand that the suit-Was won by the
plaintiff, but has been carried to the Supreme Court by the defendant.
Further, the Attorney General is supposed to have pulled that such
disbursements by the court should be made without harge when made for
a governmental entity.
I would be most grateful if you could check this mItter out for me and
advise me of your findings.
My reason for wanting to know this information is that from our standpoint,
paying the Clerk f the Circuit Court his fee rather than have him deduct
it from the Regi ry deposit provides a much clearer picture of the trans-
action involve and a better media for us to record the transaction.
If it is ii legal for the Clerk to even charge a fde, I certainly need to
know this,\for it appears we are in for some hefty billings.
Sincerely yo s
CL T SCHULTZ,