The Florida Supreme Court has implemented important changes to the state’s procedural rules for 2025 and beyond, mainly for civil cases, but with important changes for probate litigation as well.
Part I: Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 1.200 – Case Management; Pretrial Procedure
Effective Date: January 1, 2025
The Florida Supreme Court completely rewrote Rule 1.200, transforming case management from a discretionary practice into a mandatory, structured system.
The New Rule:
(b) Case Track Assignment. Not later than 120 days after an action commences as provided in rule 1.050, the court must assign each civil case to 1 of 3 case management tracks—either by an initial case management order or an administrative order on case management issued by the chief judge of the circuit—streamlined, general, or complex. Assignment is not based on the financial value of the case but rather the amount of judicial attention required for resolution.
(1) Complex cases are actions designated by court order as complex under rule 1.201. Complex cases must proceed as provided in rule 1.201.
(2) Streamlined cases are actions that reflect some mutual knowledge about the underlying facts, have limited needs for discovery, well-established legal issues related to liability and damages, few anticipated dispositive pretrial motions, minimal documentary evidence, and an anticipated trial length of no more than 3 days. Uncontested cases should generally be presumed to be streamlined cases.
(3) General cases are all other actions that do not meet the criteria for streamlined or complex.
(d)(2) Streamlined and General Cases. In streamlined and general cases, the court must issue a case management order that specifies the projected or actual trial period based on the case track assignment, consistent with administrative orders entered by the chief judge of the circuit. The order must also set deadlines that are differentiated based on whether the case is streamlined or general and must be consistent with the time standards specified in Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.250(a)(1)(B) for the completion of civil cases. The order must specify no less than the following deadlines:
(A) service of complaints
(B) service under extensions
(C) adding new parties
(D) completion of fact discovery
(E) completion of expert discovery
(F) filing and service of motion for summary judgment
(G) filing and resolution of all objections to pleadings
(H) filing and resolution of all pretrial motions; and
(I) completion of alternative dispute resolution.
(d)(3) Strict Enforcement of Deadlines. The case management order must indicate that the deadlines established in the order will be strictly enforced unless changed by court order.
(e)(1) Deadlines are Strictly Enforced. Deadlines in a case management order must be strictly enforced unless changed by court order. Parties may submit an agreed order to extend a deadline if the extension does not affect the ability to comply with the remaining dates in the case management order. If extending an individual case management deadline may affect a subsequent deadline in the case management order, parties must seek an amendment of the case management order, rather than submitting a motion for extension of an individual deadline.
(f) Notices of Unavailability. Notices of unavailability have no effect on the deadlines set by the case management order.
Why It Matters
This rule fundamentally transforms Florida civil litigation:
-
Mandatory track assignment within 120 days eliminates ambiguity about case timelines and ensures all cases receive structured management from the outset
-
Strict deadline enforcement means attorneys cannot rely on informal extensions or assume courts will routinely grant continuances
-
Notices of unavailability are ineffective—a significant departure from prior practice where such notices could pause deadlines
-
Failure to appear at case management conferences can result in dismissal, striking of pleadings, or limiting of proof or witnesses
-
Practitioners must now engage in proactive case management from the outset, ensuring discovery, expert designations, and motion practice align with court-ordered deadlines
Rule 1.202 – Conferral Prior to Filing Motions
Effective Date: January 1, 2025
This is an entirely new rule requiring attorneys to confer in good faith before filing most motions.
The New Rule:
(a) Duty. Before filing a non-dispositive motion, the movant must confer with the opposing party in a good-faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion.
(b) Certificate of Conferral. At the end of the motion and above the signature block, the movant must include a certificate of conferral in substantially the following form:
“I certify that prior to filing this motion, I discussed the relief requested in this motion by [method of communication and date] with the opposing party and [the opposing party (agrees or disagrees) on the resolution of all or part of the motion]” OR “[the opposing party did not respond (describing with particularity all of the efforts undertaken to accomplish dialogue with the opposing party prior to filing the motion)].”
OR
“I certify that conferral prior to filing is not required under rule 1.202.”
(c) Applicability; Exemptions. The requirements of this rule do not apply when the movant or the nonmovant is unrepresented by counsel (pro se). Conferral is not required prior to filing the following motions:
(1) for time to extend service of initial process;
(2) for default;
(3) for injunctive relief;
(4) for judgment on the pleadings;
(5) for summary judgment;
(6) to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted;
(7) to permit maintenance of a class action;
(8) to involuntarily dismiss an action;
(9) to dismiss for failure to prosecute;
(10) for directed verdict and motions filed under rule 1.530;
(11) for garnishment, attachment, or other motions for enforcement of a judgment under rule 1.570;
(12) for writ of possession under rule 1.580;
(13) filed in actions proceeding under section 51.011, Florida Statutes; and
(14) that do not require notice to the other party under statute or rule.(d) Sanctions. Failure to comply with the requirements of this rule may result in an appropriate sanction, including denial of a motion without prejudice. The purposeful evasion of communication under this rule may result in an appropriate sanction.
Why It Matters
This rule aims to reduce unnecessary motion practice and encourage early dispute resolution:
-
Mandatory conferral creates a record—if an attorney fails to genuinely attempt resolution, it will be documented in the certificate
-
Good faith requirement means perfunctory phone calls or emails will likely be insufficient—attorneys must genuinely attempt to resolve disputes
-
Sanctions for non-compliance can include denial of the motion without prejudice or other appropriate sanctions
-
Pro se exception: The meet-and-confer requirement does not apply when the non-movant is unrepresented
-
This cultural shift requires attorneys to engage meaningfully with opposing counsel before burdening the court with contested motions
Rule 1.280 – General Provisions Governing Discovery
Effective Date: January 1, 2025
Rule 1.280 underwent substantial revision to align Florida’s discovery practice with federal standards, introducing both mandatory initial disclosures and proportionality requirements.
The New Rule – Initial Disclosures:
(a) Initial Discovery Disclosure.
(1) In General. Except as exempted by subdivision (a)(2) or as ordered by the court, a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties the following initial discovery disclosures unless privileged or protected from disclosure:
(A) the name and, if known, the address, telephone number, and e-mail address of each individual likely to have discoverable information—along with the subjects of that information—that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment;
(B) a copy—or a description by category and location—of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control (or, if not in the disclosing party’s possession, custody, or control, a description by category and location of such information) and may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment;
(C) a computation for each category of damages claimed by the disclosing party and a copy of the documents or other evidentiary material, unless privileged or protected from disclosure, on which each computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered; provided that a party is not required to provide computations as to noneconomic damages, but the party must identify categories of damages claimed and provide supporting documents; and
(D) a copy of any insurance policy or agreement under which an insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment.
(a)(3) Time for Initial Discovery Disclosures. A party must make the initial discovery disclosures required by this rule within 60 days after the service of the complaint or joinder, unless a different time is set by court order.
The New Rule – Proportionality Standard:
(c)(1) In General. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
(f)(1) Timing. A party may not seek discovery from any source before that party’s initial disclosures are served on the other party, except when authorized by stipulation or by court order.
(g) Supplementing of Responses. A party who has made a disclosure under this rule or who has responded to an interrogatory, a request for production, or a request for admission must supplement or correct its disclosure or response:
(1) in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing; or
(2) as ordered by the court.
Why It Matters
These changes introduce three significant shifts in discovery practice:
-
Initial disclosures within 60 days require attorneys to investigate their cases much earlier than before—gone are the days of waiting for interrogatories to identify witnesses and documents
-
Proportionality is now mandatory—attorneys can no longer propound unlimited discovery without consideration of burden vs. benefit. Courts have explicit authority to limit discovery that is disproportionate to the case
-
Discovery timing restriction: A party may not seek discovery from any source before that party’s initial disclosures are served
-
Continuing duty to supplement means all discovery is now effectively continuing discovery—attorneys must proactively update their disclosures and responses as new information emerges
Rule 1.440 – Setting Action for Trial
Effective Date: January 1, 2025
Rule 1.440 was amended to eliminate the traditional requirement that pleadings be closed before a case can be set for trial.
The New Rule:
(a) Pleadings. The failure of the pleadings to be closed will not preclude the court from setting a case for trial.
(c)(2) For any case subject to rule 1.200 with a projected trial period in the case management order, not later than 45 days before the projected trial period set forth in the case management order, the court must enter an order setting the trial period.
Why It Matters
This change dramatically accelerates the litigation timeline:
-
Courts can set trial dates immediately—attorneys can no longer assume they have until pleadings close to begin serious trial preparation
-
Earlier trial dates may be set even while discovery is ongoing and motions are pending
-
Strategic implications: Parties must be prepared for trial much earlier in the litigation process, potentially affecting settlement dynamics
Rule 1.460 – Motions to Continue Trial
Effective Date: January 1, 2025
Rule 1.460 was completely rewritten to make continuances significantly more difficult to obtain.
The New Rule:
(a) Generally. Motions to continue trial are disfavored and should rarely be granted and then only upon good cause shown. Successive continuances are highly disfavored. Lack of due diligence in preparing for trial is not grounds to continue the case. Motions for continuance based on parental leave are governed by Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.570.
(b) Motion; Requirements. A motion to continue trial must be in writing unless made at a trial and, except for good cause shown, must be signed by the named party requesting the continuance.
(c) Motion; Timing of Filing. A motion to continue trial must be filed promptly after the appearance of good cause to support such motion. Failure to promptly request a continuance may be a basis for denying the motion to continue.
(d) Motion; Contents. All motions for continuance, even if agreed, must state with specificity:
(1) the basis of the need for the continuance, including when the basis became known to the movant;
(2) whether the motion is opposed;
(3) the action and specific dates for the action that will enable the movant to be ready for trial by the proposed date, including, but not limited to, confirming the specific date any required participants such as third-party witnesses or experts are available; and
(4) the proposed date by which the case will be ready for trial and whether that date is agreed by all parties.(g) Dilatory Conduct. If a continuance is granted based on the dilatory conduct of an attorney or named party, the court may impose sanctions on the attorney, the party, or both.
(h) Order on Motion for Continuance. When ruling on a motion to continue, the court must state, either on the record or in a written order, the factual basis for the ruling. An order granting a motion to continue must either set a new trial period or set a case management conference. If the trial is continued, the new trial must be set for the earliest date practicable, given the needs of the case and resources of the court. The order must reflect what further activity will or will not be permitted.
Why It Matters
This rule represents a cultural shift in Florida litigation:
-
Continuances are now presumptively disfavored—a stark contrast to prior practice where continuances were routinely granted
-
Party signature requirement places responsibility directly on litigants, not their attorneys
-
Dilatory conduct triggers sanctions—attorneys who fail to prepare adequately face consequences beyond mere denial of the continuance
-
Prompt filing required—waiting until close to trial to seek a continuance may result in denial
-
Concrete dates required—motions must specify exactly when the obstacle will be resolved and when the party will be trial-ready
Rule 1.510 – Summary Judgment
Effective Date: January 1, 2025
Rule 1.510 underwent significant procedural changes following the 2021 adoption of the federal summary judgment standard.
The New Rule:
(a) Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment. A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense—or the part of each claim or defense—on which summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court shall state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion. The summary judgment standard provided for in this rule shall be construed and applied in accordance with the federal summary judgment standard.
(b) Time to File a Motion. A party may move for summary judgment at any time after the expiration of 20 days from the commencement of the action or after service of a motion for summary judgment by the adverse party. The movant must file and serve the motion for summary judgment consistent with any court-ordered deadlines.
(c)(5) Timing for Supporting Factual Positions. At the time of filing a motion for summary judgment, the movant must also serve the movant’s supporting factual position as provided in subdivision (1) above. No later than 40 days after service of the motion for summary judgment, the nonmovant must serve a response that includes the nonmovant’s supporting factual position as provided in subdivision (1) above.
(c)(6) Timing for Hearing. Any hearing on a motion for summary judgment must be set for a date at least 10 days after the deadline for serving a response, unless the parties stipulate or the court orders otherwise.
Why It Matters
These procedural changes have significant practical implications:
-
Response deadline is now tied to service of the motion, not the hearing date—attorneys must respond within 40 days regardless of when (or whether) a hearing is scheduled
-
Case management deadlines control—summary judgment motions must be filed by the deadline in the CMO, not whenever the moving party chooses
-
Federal precedent governs—practitioners can rely on decades of federal case law when arguing summary judgment motions, including Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., and Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.
-
Judges must state reasons on the record when granting or denying summary judgment, facilitating appellate review
Part II: Florida Probate Rules
Rule 5.025 – Adversary Proceedings
The Florida Probate Rules incorporate the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure for adversary proceedings, meaning many of the civil procedure changes apply to contested probate matters.
The Rule:
(d) Notice and Procedure in Adversary Proceedings.
(1) Petitioner must serve formal notice, except as provided in proceedings under section 825.1035, Florida Statutes.
(2) After service of formal notice, the proceedings, as nearly as practicable, must be conducted similar to suits of a civil nature, including entry of defaults. The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure govern, except for rule 1.525.
Why It Matters
Because adversary probate proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (except Rule 1.525 regarding attorneys’ fees), the 2025 civil procedure amendments directly impact probate litigation:
-
Summary judgment timelines apply: The 40-day response deadline and case management order requirements govern probate litigation
-
Duty to confer applies: Attorneys must confer before filing most non-dispositive motions in probate adversary proceedings
-
Initial disclosure requirements: Parties in adversary probate proceedings must provide initial disclosures within 60 days
-
Case management tracks: Adversary probate proceedings may be subject to the streamlined, general, or complex case track system
Rule 5.405 – Proceedings to Determine Protected Homestead Status of Real Property
Effective Date: October 1, 2025
Rule 5.405 was amended to clarify procedures for determining homestead status.
The Amended Rule:
(b) Contents. The petition must be verified by the petitioner and must include:
(1) a legal description of the property;
(2) the name of the owner of record at the time of the decedent’s death;
(3) if known by the petitioner, whether the decedent had, at or before the time of death, made a valid designation of homestead under the Florida Constitution to a particular person who is not the surviving spouse;
(4) the relationship of the decedent to the owner of record, if different from the decedent;
(5) the names and addresses of all persons known to the petitioner who claim an interest in the property;
(6) a statement that the property is the homestead of the decedent and the basis for such claim; and
(7) if applicable, the method by which a surviving spouse waived homestead rights.
The amendment also removed references to “of the decedent” when referring to homestead to align with the statutory definition in section 731.201(33), Florida Statutes.
Why It Matters
This clarification provides important guidance for practitioners:
-
Spousal waiver method must be specified—petitions can no longer simply allege waiver without explaining how it occurred
-
Alignment with statutory definitions reduces ambiguity in homestead determinations
-
Practitioners must now document the specific mechanism of any spousal waiver in the petition
Part III: Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
Amendment: Arbitration Awards
Effective Date: July 1, 2024
The prior version of subdivision (a)(3)(C)(iv) provided for review of orders determining “the entitlement of a party to arbitration, or to an appraisal under an insurance policy.”
The amended rule now reads:
(a)(3)(C)(iv) [Appeals permitted from orders that] determine the entitlement of a party to an appraisal under an insurance policy.
A new subdivision was added:
(a)(3)(I) [Appeals permitted from orders that] determine the entitlement of a party to arbitration, confirm or deny confirmation of an arbitration award or partial arbitration award, or modify, correct, or vacate an arbitration award.
Why It Matters
This amendment consolidates and expands arbitration-related appeals:
-
Immediate appeal now available for orders confirming or denying confirmation of arbitration awards
-
Orders modifying, correcting, or vacating awards are now directly appealable
-
Previously, parties often had to await final judgment to challenge adverse arbitration rulings; now, immediate review is available
-
This change allows parties to resolve arbitration disputes more efficiently without proceeding through full litigation
Rule 9.148 – Appeal Proceedings to Review Orders Under Florida Mental Health/Baker Act
Effective Date: January 1, 2024
The Florida Supreme Court adopted entirely new Rule 9.148 to address appeals in mental health proceedings under the Florida Mental Health Act (Baker Act).
The New Rule:
(e)(3)(B) Times for Service. The initial brief must be served within 20 days after service of the record on appeal. The answer brief must be served within 20 days after service of the initial brief. The reply brief, if any, must be served within 7 days after the service of the answer brief.
(e)(4) Motions for Extensions of Time. An extension of time will be granted only for extraordinary circumstances. The motion must state that the appeal is from an order under The Florida Mental Health Act/Baker Act and must set out the extraordinary circumstances that necessitate an extension.
(f) Expedited Review. The court must give priority to appeals under this rule.
Why It Matters
-
Expedited review ensures that individuals subject to involuntary mental health treatment receive prompt appellate consideration
-
Compressed briefing schedule (20 days for initial and answer briefs, vs. 70 days in typical appeals) reflects the urgency of liberty interests at stake
-
Extensions only for extraordinary circumstances—unlike typical appeals where extensions are routinely granted
-
Priority status means courts must give these appeals precedence over other matters
Rule 9.020 – Definitions (Rendition and Tolling)
Effective Date: 2024
The Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 9.020 to address motions to vacate orders issued by general magistrates.
The Amended Rule:
(h)(1) [Added to the list of motions that toll rendition:] motions to vacate orders issued by general magistrates under Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure 12.490(e)(3) or 12.491(f).
Why It Matters
-
Clarifies appeal timing in cases involving general magistrate orders
-
Prevents premature appeals by ensuring parties have time to challenge magistrate orders before the appeal clock begins
-
This procedural clarification protects appellate rights in family law matters where magistrates issue orders subject to review
Practical Recommendations for Practitioners
For Civil Litigation
-
Calendar all CMO deadlines immediately upon receipt of a case management order—treat these as jurisdictional deadlines
-
Begin case investigation within 30 days of filing to meet the 60-day initial disclosure requirement
-
Document all conferral efforts before filing motions—the Certificate of Conferral will be scrutinized
-
Prepare for earlier trials—the elimination of the “at issue” requirement means trial dates may be set while pleadings are still open
-
Avoid seeking continuances unless absolutely necessary—and be prepared to explain in detail why the continuance is needed and how the issue will be resolved
For Probate Litigation
-
Apply civil procedure timelines to adversary probate proceedings, including the 40-day summary judgment response deadline
-
Comply with initial disclosure requirements in contested probate matters
-
Document homestead waiver methods thoroughly when filing petitions under Rule 5.405
For Appellate Practice
-
Consider immediate appeal for newly appealable nonfinal orders
- Meet expedited deadlines in Baker Act appeals—the 20-day briefing schedule is strictly enforced
Conclusion
These amendments represent the most comprehensive overhaul of Florida’s procedural rules in decades. The common themes are clear: enhanced efficiency, stricter deadlines, alignment with federal standards, and greater judicial control over case management. Practitioners who adapt quickly to these changes will thrive; those who attempt to practice as before will find themselves facing sanctions, missed deadlines, and adverse rulings.
The Florida Supreme Court’s willingness to make mid-course corrections—as demonstrated by the December 2024 amendment changing the summary judgment response deadline from 60 to 40 days—suggests that further refinements may be forthcoming as the bench and bar gain experience with the new procedural landscape.
