Active Case Management

Let’s start at the beginning. The purpose of Chapter 61 is to resolve divorce in an amicable setting with the least harm possible to children—not to prolong litigation for years on end.

Rule 61.001 plainly states:

(1) This chapter shall be liberally construed and applied.

(2) Its purposes are:

(a) To preserve the integrity of marriage and to safeguard meaningful family relationships;

(b) To promote the amicable settlement of disputes that arise between parties to a marriage; and

(c) To mitigate the potential harm to the spouses and their children caused by the process of legal dissolution of marriage.

So, keep the kids out of it, get along, and settle. Seems easy? Well, as we all know, getting an emotionally disrupted couple to agree is about as likely as the Miami Dolphins winning a playoff game[i].  This is not to stay that it can’t be done[ii]. In fact, the majority of cases that pass through the family division are resolved in an uncontested manner.

So how does the court approach the cases that are contested? In my view, the court can succeed and lead people to resolution through active involvement in the case.

But wait—shouldn’t judges keep their hands off the litigation and let the parties set the pace? Absolutely not. The rules specifically tell us (the judges) to get involved.

Rule 2.545[iii]

Florida law provides judges, lawyers, and litigants a framework for reaching an expedient and fair resolution. Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.545 states:

Purpose. Judges and lawyers have a professional obligation to conclude litigation as soon as it is reasonably and justly possible to do so. However, parties and counsel shall be afforded a reasonable time to prepare and present their case.

This makes sense, especially in the family arena. Litigation is expensive, stressful, and particularly time-consuming for self-represented parties. We can all recall cases that, for one reason or another, get “stuck”. As a judge, one of my obligations is to figure out why. It is a disservice to the parties, and an injustice at that, if stand idly by and let them sink into the mire. Does this mean the Court can roll up its sleeves and put on a hard hat? I think it does—and Rule 2.545(b) provides the Court with the tools.

Rule 2.545(b) states as follows:

(b) Case Control. The trial judge shall take charge of all cases at an early stage in the litigation and shall control the progress of the case thereafter until the case is determined. The trial judge shall take specific steps to monitor and control the pace of litigation, including the following:

(1) assuming early and continuous control of the court calendar;

(2) identifying priority cases as assigned by statute, rule of procedure, case law, or otherwise;

(3) implementing such docket control policies as may be necessary to advance priority cases to ensure prompt resolution;

(4) identifying cases subject to alternative dispute resolution processes;

(5) developing rational and effective trial setting policies; and

(6) advancing the trial setting of priority cases, older cases, and cases of greater urgency.

Subsection (b) gives the court authority to control the progress of the case. This includes ensuring that motions are addressed and disposed of, hearings are concluded within the time allotted, filed motions are being set for hearings (not just filed), and identifying when a case is ready to progress to the trial calendar[iv].

In my division (39), calendar calls are used to set trials. Many of our readers have appeared at a calendar call where 14 or 15 cases are set. The calendar call is held at the beginning of the month and trials occur at the end of the month; the parties are given a date and time certain as to when the trial will commence. Often, eight or nine cases are set for trial, with the oldest progressing first. Frequently, two or three trials are set for the same day so that if one settles, another can proceed. Why does this work? Because there are deadlines, and deadlines promote settlement.

Settlements, especially in domestic litigation (assuming the settlement is well drafted), are the court’s best tool. I often tell parties appearing in front of me that “I do my best work when I am not involved.” I have found that parties are “happier” when they participate in drafting the roadmap to their post-divorce life.  This also means resolving as many issues as possible by agreement and reserving only the most difficult ones for judicial determination. Thus, having a deadline—seeing a finish line—is one of the most effective ways to bring parties together.

Calendar call settings can also be used to address and clarify outstanding discovery issues. With the agreement of the parties, the court can manage the case at calendar call, set discovery deadlines, and clarify what remains unresolved.

Rule 12.010 and Rule 12.220

Case management is emphasized in the Family Law Rules just as it is in Rule 2.545, beginning with the very first rule of the chapter. Rule 12.010 states:

(b) Purpose.

(1) These rules are intended to facilitate access to the court and to provide procedural fairness to all parties, to save time and expense through active case management, setting timetables, and the use of alternatives to litigation, and to enable the court to coordinate related cases and proceedings to avoid multiple appearances by the same parties on the same or similar issues and to avoid inconsistent court orders. [emphasis added]

This rule makes clear that courts are intended to manage cases actively. Many lawyers and litigants appearing before this Court have heard me say, “Your case is in a division where the Court keeps its foot on the gas.” It is no secret that I frequently audit my caseload. If I see a case without movement for 90 days, expect to be set for case management. Usually, between the setting of the case management and the hearing itself, the lawyers are able to get the case back on track. If not, I know what steps are necessary and can nudge them towards the end-zone.

It is understandably different for self-represented litigants. In these situations, the court is happy to provide procedural guidance on what needs to happen next. To make matters easier, I keep many frequently used forms available on my judicial website. Need to know what to produce in mandatory disclosure? No problem—there’s a custom chart that explains the procedure. Need the form to obtain a business record certification or a blank financial affidavit?  Curious as to the Court’s division policies? This too is available with a visit to my website[v].

Rule 12.200 provides a framework for case management. I encourage litigants to take advantage of my weekly case management calendar. I will also schedule a case management conference upon request and when I believe it is necessary to give the case a push. With this kind of access, parties and attorneys should be able to move their cases along at a reasonable pace. I also frequently use case management hearings for cases involving reunification or therapeutic components requiring court supervision or periodic updates. This way, children’s issues do not fall between the cracks.

Time

Pursuant to Rule 2.250[vi], the presumptive time for resolving a contested family law case is 180 days. Cases exceeding that timeframe are reported to the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court. This will be a lengthy list. There are many reasons cases exceed the time expectations, a major one being limited available court time. Judges are cognizant that matters are often set many months out from the time of request. This type of delay is contrary to the intent of the rules and can only be remedied by lawyers and judges working in unison.

Matters are often resolved shortly before the scheduled hearing date, resulting in unexpected gaps in the court’s calendar. To address this, some divisions use a back-up system that involves double-booking cases. However, this approach requires attorneys to reserve time for hearings that may ultimately not take place. The upside, though, pays dividends for all involved (earlier hearing time, happy clients, room on the court’s calendar).

Then there is the issue of coordinating hearing dates. One of the most frustrating hearings is the one where court time is used to find more court time. The families and children involved bear the consequences of these delays. Unless there are multiple attorneys and parties involved on a complex matter, the parties should be able to schedule without the court’s involvement.

There is no simple solution, but some ideas include requiring parties to confer 30 days before an evidentiary hearing to narrow or resolve outstanding issues. This requires lawyers and self-represented litigants to respond to communications. In a time when communication is easier than ever, there should be no excuse for ignoring an email or phone call.

As judges, we must be proactive with our calendars by auditing caseloads to determine what comes “next.” We are fortunate that family related cases have a similar roadmap and there is a logical, generally predicable progression, towards final judgment.

And, before setting a hearing, the court should realistically assess how long the matter will take and allocate time accordingly. A temporary relief hearing should not become an all-day affair. Attorneys, too, should tailor their presentations to fit within the allotted time.

Judges should also periodically reassess how their divisions operate. I have recently updated my own court procedures to address many of the issues discussed. For instance, if a party files a motion, the Court expects that a request for hearing be filed and coordinated within 30 days. Motions should not sit unheard on a court’ s docket until the moment before trial. Similarly, parties must meet and confer prior to the filing of a motion and certify that the matter was unable to be resolved. I want to know whether you have tried to resolve a summer camp decision prior to taking the court’s time away from a more pressing matter.

What I have described is a group effort. It will take judges and lawyers alike to adapt to the expectation that cases resolve at a quicker pace than before. Hopefully, with these thoughts in mind, we can work collaboratively to ensure that family cases meet the spirit of the rules and are resolved in a more expedient and cooperative manner.

[i] See the https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/sports/nfl/2024/01/25/the-miami-dolphins-have-the-nfls-longest-drought-without-a-playoff-win/72339290007/

[ii] According to Fox Sports, the Miami Dolphins are +8000 to win the 2025-2026 Superbowl. This is about a 1.2% chance. The Dolphins are +155 to make the playoffs (39% implied odds).

[iii] Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin., Rule 2.545 (2025)

[iv] Rule 12.440 (c)

[v] https://www.jud11.flcourts.org/Judge-Details?judgeid=977&sectionid=49

[vi] Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin., Rule 2.250