## Facts

- J. Tucker was involved in a pending probate matter concerning the Estate of James George.
- Tucker attempted to file a “Declaration of Adversary Proceeding,” a probate pleading served on interested persons stating that the probate proceeding should be treated as adversarial.
- Harvey Ruvin, the Clerk of the Circuit Court, followed a probate-division administrative practice under which the clerk presented such declarations to the presiding probate judge before docketing them.
- The presiding probate judge refused to accept Tucker’s declaration for filing by marking and initialing it as “denied,” but did not enter a written order denying the filing.
- The clerk returned the declaration and the filing fee to Tucker, and the declaration was never filed or placed in the court record.
- Tucker filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the circuit court seeking an order directing the clerk to accept and file the declaration.
- The clerk moved to dismiss, arguing mandamus was improper because Tucker allegedly had an adequate remedy by appeal from the judge’s refusal.
- The circuit court dismissed Tucker’s mandamus petition on the ground that an adequate legal remedy existed.
- Tucker appealed the dismissal to the Third District Court of Appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether mandamus is available to compel the clerk to accept and file a declaration of adversary proceeding when the document was rejected based on an administrative practice and an informal judicial notation, and no written, appealable order was rendered.

## Decision

- The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the order dismissing Tucker’s mandamus petition.
- The court remanded with instructions that the trial court grant mandamus and direct the clerk to accept and file Tucker’s declaration.
- The court reasoned that the clerk’s acceptance and filing of pleadings is a ministerial function when facial filing requirements are met, and that an internal practice requiring pre-filing judicial screening could not justify keeping the pleading out of the file.
- The court rejected the argument that Tucker had an adequate remedy by appeal because the judge did not render a written order; without an order entered in the record, there was nothing appealable.
- By preventing the declaration from being filed and recorded, the practice impaired Tucker’s ability to obtain judicial action and meaningful review, implicating Florida’s constitutional guarantee that the courts remain open to every person.

## Legal Principles

- A clerk of court generally has a ministerial duty to accept and file pleadings that are tendered for filing with the required fee and in proper form; the clerk is not a gatekeeper for the merits.
- Mandamus lies to compel performance of a clear ministerial duty when the petitioner shows (1) a clear legal right, (2) an indisputable duty on the part of the respondent, and (3) no other adequate legal remedy.
- An appeal is not an adequate alternative remedy when no written, rendered order exists; an informal notation on a document returned unfiled does not create an appealable ruling.
- Administrative practices that keep pleadings from being docketed may interfere with the constitutional right of access to courts by preventing litigants from making a record and obtaining reviewable judicial decisions.

## Conclusion

Tucker v. Ruvin holds that when a clerk, following an administrative practice, returns a declaration of adversary proceeding unfiled based on a judge’s informal “denied” notation and without a written order, the filer lacks an appealable remedy and may obtain mandamus to compel the clerk to perform the ministerial act of filing the pleading, consistent with Florida’s access-to-courts guarantee.


Tucker v. Ruvin, 748 So. 2d 376 (2000)