E-Copy Received Mar 24, 2010 1:02 PM

IN THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

JOHN P. CARROLL,

Plaintiff/Appellant,

v. CASE NO.: 1D10-643

L.T. CASE: 2009 CA 002021
WATERSOUND BEACH COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, INC., WATERCOLOR
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.,
SANDRA MATTESON, DAVID LILIENTHAL,
RONALD VOELKER, MARY JOULE,
JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE,

Defendants/Appellees.
______________________________/

ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT

OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR WALTON COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NUMBER 2009 CA 002021
___________________________________________________________________

APPELLAT'S OTICE OF SUUPLEMETAL AUTHORITY

___________________________________________________________________

John P. Carroll, Pro Se

Box 613524
WaterSound, FL 32461
Telephone 850-231-5616
Facsimile 850-622-5618
AAbsolute@aol.com
 COMES NOW APPELLANT JOHN P. CARROLL, pursuant Florida Rules of

Appellate Procedure 9.225 and states:

1. Appellant calls to attention a decision, rule, statute, or other authority that

is significant to the issues raised, and that has been discovered after the last brief

served in the cause.

2. Charles James Grapski and Michael Canney, Appellants, v. City of

Alachua, Case No. 1D09-509, Opinion filed January 21, 2010.

3. Pertinent to our case as to, “We have de novo review of a question of law.

Whether the trial court correctly interpreted and applied the relevant statutes is such a

question. See Gilliam v. Smart, 809 So. 2d 905, 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Rogers v.

Hood, 906 So. 2d 1220, 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (stating that the issue of what

constitutes a public record is a question of law).

4. Pertinent to our arguments as to, “This unjustifiable delay and closed

procedure, say appellants, is tantamount to denying their request for the Minutes

altogether and constitutes an unlawful refusal to comply with chapter 119. See Barfield

v. Town of Eatonville, 675 So. 2d 223, 224 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (stating that “[a]n

unjustified delay in complying with a public records request amounts to an unlawful

refusal”).

5. Pertinent to our case as to, “Production days or weeks later, though, did

not cure the error. Under the present facts, the City’s denial not only breached the duty
to provide such records at a reasonable time and under reasonable conditions, but also

contravened the purpose and mandate of our public records law. Accordingly,

appellants’ receipt of a copy of the Minutes—months after their requests and clearly

after their primary need passed—did not moot the issue of the City’s unlawful refusal

to fulfill its duty to allow reasonable inspection and copying. See United Faculty of

Fla. v. Pub. Employees Relations Comm’n, 898 So. 2d 96, 100 & n.4 (Fla. 1st DCA

2005) (concluding that the subsequent certification of public employee unions as

exclusive bargaining agents of state university employees did not moot cases alleging

unfair labor charges filed by unions, for an unfair labor practice occurred when a

practice prohibited by law occurred, such that subsequent actions could affect the

remedy but did not expunge the unfair labor practice). The trial court erred as a matter

of law in holding otherwise.”

6. Pertinent to our arguments as to, “Looking to well-established law, we

note the doctrine of mootness does not apply to situations where an ongoing procedure

violates the law or the violation is capable of repetition but evades proper review. See

Sims v. State, 998 So. 2d 494, 503-04 n.8 (Fla. 2008); Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217,

218 n.1 (Fla. 1984). Moreover, because the damage occurred when the City refused to

produce the Minutes, production after the fact did nothing to mollify appellants’ injury,

the deprivation of constitutional and statutory rights. See Daniels v. Bryson, 548 So. 2d

679, 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (“The impermissible withholding of documents

otherwise required to be disclosed constitutes, in and of itself, irreparable injury to the

person making the public records request.”). A holding otherwise would allow a

covered body to delay meaningful access to public records, only to disclose them

belatedly and after the utility of such records had faded. In that instance, an assertion of

mootness because the violation had been “cured” once the requesting party gained

access to the records would disguise a breach of public records law.”

7. Pertinent to our arguments, “Mere showing that the government in the

sunshine law has been violated constitutes an irreparable public injury.” Town of Palm

Beach v. Gradison, 296 So. 2d 473, 477 (Fla. 1974). Further, “no resolution, rule, or

formal action shall be considered binding except as taken or made” pursuant to the

open meeting requirements. § 286.011(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). Apparently, even “an

unintended violation of the government in the sunshine law will negate” action taken

by a city commission. Gradison, 296 So. 2d at 477-78.”

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________
John P. Carroll, pro se
Box 613524
WaterSound, FL 32461
(850) 231-5616 - phone
(850) 622-5618- fax
AAbsolute@aol.com
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been
furnished to Christopher L. George, Esq., PO Box 1034, Mobile, AL 36633 and to
Mark D. Davis, Esq., 694 Baldwin Ave. Suite 1, PO Box 705, DeFuniak Springs, FL
32435, and to Gary Shipman, Esq., 1414 County Highway 283 South, Suite B, Santa
Rosa Beach, FL 32459, Attorneys for Appellees, by hand delivery or certified mail and
electronically this 24th day of March, 2010.
_____________________________
John Carroll, pro se
Box 613524
WaterSound, FL 32461
(850) 231-5616 - phone
(850) 622-5618- fax
AAbsolute@aol.com

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIACE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the lettering in this notice is Times New Roman 14-
point Font and complies with the font requirements of Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.210(a)(2).
_____________________________
John Carroll, pro se
Box 613524
WaterSound, FL 32461
(850) 231-5616 - phone
(850) 622-5618- fax
AAbsolute@aol.com