Changeflow GovPing Courts & Legal Hernando County v. McGee & Mason, PA - Sovereig...
Priority review Enforcement Amended Final

Hernando County v. McGee & Mason, PA - Sovereign Immunity

Favicon for www.courtlistener.com FL District Court of Appeal Opinions
Filed March 27th, 2026
Detected March 28th, 2026
Email

Summary

The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's decision denying Hernando County's motion to dismiss a complaint seeking attorney's fees. The appellate court found that the county's reliance on matters outside the complaint was improper for a motion to dismiss, and sovereign immunity claims would proceed.

What changed

The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of Hernando County's motion to dismiss a complaint filed by McGee & Mason, P.A. and Joseph Mason, Esquire. The complaint sought payment of outstanding attorney's fees for services allegedly rendered to the City of Weeki Wachee before its dissolution. Hernando County had argued that sovereign immunity barred the claims, but the appellate court found that the county improperly relied on evidence outside the four corners of the complaint when making its motion to dismiss.

This decision means that the case will proceed to further proceedings in the trial court, allowing the Appellees to pursue their claims for attorney's fees. Compliance officers within government entities should note that motions to dismiss based on sovereign immunity must be supported by evidence within the complaint itself, and that claims for services rendered to dissolved entities may be actionable. The specific implications for Hernando County and potentially other municipalities regarding their liability for pre-dissolution debts and the application of sovereign immunity will be further determined through the ongoing litigation.

What to do next

  1. Review sovereign immunity arguments and supporting documentation for motions to dismiss.
  2. Ensure all evidence supporting a motion to dismiss is contained within the complaint or its attachments.
  3. Proceed with litigation for claims related to pre-dissolution services and attorney's fees.

Source document (simplified)

Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project
, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Hernando County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida v. McGee & Mason, PA, and Joseph Mason, Esquire

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Combined Opinion

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA


Case No. 5D2025-0708
LT Case No. 27-2024-CA-540


HERNANDO COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the STATE OF
FLORIDA,

Appellant,

v.

MCGEE & MASON, P.A., AND
JOSEPH MASON, ESQUIRE,

Appellees.


Nonfinal appeal from the Circuit Court for Hernando County.
Don Collins Barbee, Jr., Judge.

Melissa A. Tartaglia and Jon A. Jouben, of Hernando County
Attorney’s Office, Brooksville, for Appellant.

Robert Bruce Snow, of Robert Bruce Snow, P.A., Brooksville,
for Appellees.

March 27, 2026

EDWARDS, J.

Hernando County, a political subdivision of the state of
Florida, appeals the trial court’s non-final order denying its motion
to dismiss the multi-count complaint of McGee & Mason, P.A. and
Joseph Mason, Esquire (“Appellees”), in which Appellees sought
payment of outstanding attorney’s fees for services they allegedly
performed for and billed to the City of Weeki Wachee before that
city was legally dissolved. Hernando County moved to dismiss
claiming, inter alia, that sovereign immunity barred the Appellees’
claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(F)(iii). In its motion to dismiss, Hernando
County relies on matters not found within the four corners of the
complaint or attachments thereto. The trial court correctly
determined that was beyond the scope of what it could properly
consider when ruling on a motion to dismiss. See Enlow v. E.C.
Scott Wright, P.A., 274 So. 3d 1192, 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
(citing Busch v. Lennar Homes, LLC, 219 So. 3d 93, 94 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2017) (additional citation omitted)). Therefore, we affirm and
remand for further proceedings.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

MAKAR and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.


Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.


2

Source

Analysis generated by AI. Source diff and links are from the original.

Classification

Agency
FL DCA
Filed
March 27th, 2026
Instrument
Enforcement
Legal weight
Binding
Stage
Final
Change scope
Substantive
Document ID
5D2025-0708
Docket
5D2025-0708

Who this affects

Applies to
Government agencies
Industry sector
5411 Legal Services 9211 Government & Public Administration
Activity scope
Legal Services Government Contracting
Geographic scope
Florida US-FL

Taxonomy

Primary area
Judicial Administration
Operational domain
Legal
Topics
Sovereign Immunity Government Liability Attorney's Fees

Get Courts & Legal alerts

Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

Get alerts for this source

We'll email you when FL District Court of Appeal Opinions publishes new changes.

Optional. Personalizes your daily digest.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.