Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elder Abuse Exploitation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves bill to allow service of exploitation injunctions via electronic platforms (SB 106)
Summary
SB 106 would let courts serve alleged exploiters who cannot be identified by traditional means through the same electronic channel they used to contact the vulnerable adult, and adds procedural safeguards; the committee reported the bill favorably.
The Senate Committee on Children, Families, and Elder Affairs on May 20 reported SB 106 favorably. The bill modifies Florida's exploitation injunction process by permitting alternative service on an “unascertainable” exploiter through the electronic method the exploiter used to contact the victim, such as text message, Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp or other platforms.
Senator Martin, sponsor of SB 106, explained the intent: the 2018 exploitation injunction statute allows families to file an injunction to freeze assets without a filing fee or attorney, but exploiters often hide behind anonymous profiles. Martin said the bill would “allow the exploiter to be served in the same manner, such as text message, Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, the same way that they that they started that communication.” He said the change is intended to give notice to anonymous exploiters and give them an opportunity to appear and defend their case in court.
Shannon Miller, chair of the Elder Law section of the Florida Bar, gave a series of examples to illustrate why alternative service is needed. She described clients who lost large sums to online romance or prize scams and explained that the existing process can leave families without a quick remedy when the exploiter’s identity cannot be found; under current law, banks may try to hold funds but once assets leave the account recovery can be difficult. Miller described the exploitation injunction as a tool that “goes to the judge” quickly and can freeze assets pending further proceedings.
Committee discussion focused on practical effects: senators asked whether the injunction would stop gift‑card purchases (witnesses said gift cards are hard to trace and that the injunction works best to stop future transfers and bank withdrawals), whether the clerk's office or banks would face unfunded workload impacts (sponsor said the petition framework already permits no‑fee filings and the substitute service occurs after filing), and how trusted contacts and Adult Protective Services can be involved when an at‑risk adult has no family.
Key provisions discussed in committee: the bill defines an “unascertainable respondent” as someone whose identity cannot be ascertained and who communicated through means that make tracking impractical; it permits service through the same medium as the exploiter used to contact the vulnerable adult; it includes expedited temporary freezes with a final hearing (about 15 days later) and a 30‑day pause before returning funds to the vulnerable adult to allow due‑process defenses.
Action and outcome: The committee recorded affirmative votes and reported SB 106 favorably.
Votes and procedural notes: The roll call taken after debate recorded the following affirmative votes: Senator Broder; Senator Harrell; Senator Rouson; Senator Sree; Senator Simon; Vice Chair Garcia; and Chair Grahl. By that vote, SB 106 was reported favorably to proceed.
Ending: Sponsors and elder‑law advocates said the change would close an identified loophole enabling anonymous exploiters to evade civil process while maintaining due‑process protections for respondents.
