5D05-434 Thompson v.Napotnik

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D05-434

Case Date: 02/06/2006

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2006 WILLIAM A. THOMPSON, Appellant, v. RICHARD NAPOTNIK, AS CHAIR, ETC., Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed February 10, 2006 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Donald E. Grincewicz, Judge. C. Allen Watts, of Cobb & Cole, Deland, for Appellant. Frederic B. O'Neal, Windermere, for Appellee. PALMER, J. William Thompson appeals the trial court's final judgment entered on the pleadings in favor of Richard Napotnik. Finding no error committed by the trial court, we affirm. Thompson filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Richard Napotnik in Napotnik's capacity as the chairperson of the "Committee to Recall Thompson" and Kathy Golden in her capacity as Winter Garden's City Clerk. The complaint explained that Thompson is an elected commissioner of the City of Winter Garden. The complaint further explained that Napotnik filed a petition seeking Thompson's recall from office and that Golden had delivered same to Thompson. The Case No. 5D05-434

recall was based upon a claim that Thompson had violated the terms of Florida's Sunshine Law. The complaint averred that the recall petition failed to set forth facts which, if true, would demonstrate malfeasance in office, and thus the petition failed to contain legal grounds for recall as set forth in section 100.361 of the Florida Statutes.1 Napotnik filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In the motion, Napotnik argued that dismissal was warranted because the complaint failed to set forth a cognizable cause of action. Upon stipulation of the parties, the trial court treated the motion as being a motion for judgment on the pleadings and then granted the motion. The trial court thereafter entered a written final judgment on the pleadings in favor of Napotnik, ruling that the statements set forth in the recall petition were legally sufficient to allege a claim of malfeasance since they alleged a violation of Florida's Sunshine Law. This appeal timely followed.

1

That statute reads: 100.361. Municipal recall *** [1](a) A [recall] petition shall be prepared naming the person sought to be recalled and containing a statement of grounds for recall in not more than 200 words limited solely to the grounds specified in paragraph (b). *** (b) The grounds for removal of elected municipal officials shall, for the purposes of this act, be limited to the following and must be contained in the petition: 1. Malfeasance; 2. Misfeasance; 3. Neglect of duty; 4. Drunkenness; 5. Incompetence; 6. Permanent inability to perform official duties; and 7. Conviction of a felony involving moral turpitude.

Download 5D05-434 Thompson v.Napotnik.pdf