WARREN LEE EDWARDS v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (2023)

Warren Edwards seeks review of a trial court's order dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus seeking a refund of money withdrawn from his Covid Relief Act payments. We reverse and remand.

Appellant received two deposits into his inmate trust account. The first was a $600 payment under the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (“CRRSAA”). The second was a $1,400 payment from the American Rescue Plan Act (“ARPA”). His beginning trust account balance was zero and he received no other payments during the timeframe at issue.

When Appellant received the $600 payment, a permissible $.50 processing fee and impermissible lien payments were deducted until the payment was depleted. A month later, the Department refunded $510.49.

When the $1,400 payment was deposited into the account, a $.50 processing fee and lien payments were deducted until the $1,400 payment was depleted.

A month later, the account was refunded $89.01, completely reimbursing the first $600 payment. The next day, the Department deducted $233.78 for lien payments.

Appellant filed a grievance with the Department, stating that Covid Relief Payments had been improperly deducted from his inmate trust account and had not been properly refunded. The Department responded that agency procedure and section 945.215(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2021), require all debts be applied to any incoming deposits before the deposit may be used for personal use. The Department stated that, under CRRSAA, debts were not to be applied to the $600 payment. The Department further stated that, under ARPA, debts were to be applied to the $1,400 payment. The Department responded that it had impermissibly deducted lien payments from the $600 payment, but the account had been refunded, and any later deductions were taken from the $1,400 payment.

After Appellant exhausted all other administrative remedies, he petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandamus directing the Department to refund the money improperly deducted from his trust account. The trial court dismissed the petition as moot, because it found that the Department reimbursed Appellant the full $600 payment, and the deduction the day after the refund was from the $1,400 payment.

“A case is ‘moot’ when it presents no actual controversy or when the issues ceased to exist.” Goodwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla. 1992). This controversy is not moot because Appellant is entitled to a $233.78 refund.

The trial court concluded that the Department had reimbursed the $600 payment in its entirety, and therefore the case was moot. But following that reimbursement, the Department improperly deducted $233.78. Because Appellant's beginning balance was $0 and he did not receive any other funds during the relevant period, the Department necessarily deducted $233.78 from the $600 payment.

Therefore, we reverse the trial court's dismissal and remand this case for an order directing the Department to provide Appellant a $233.78 refund.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

B.L. THOMAS, J.

KELSEY and NORDBY, JJ., concur.