AGENDA E-Portal Subcommittee and User Group I

AGENDA
E-Portal Subcommittee and User Group
Subcommittee Meeting:
Thursday, November 6, 2014
E-portal Subcommittee
I.
Orange County Courthouse
425 N. Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida
Medina Conference Room, 23rd floor
1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
e-Portal User Group
 Linking documents to previous filings – Bethany Gibson
 Proposed Orders – Bethany Gibson
 Initial category headings – Fernando Cabrera
II.
e-Portal Subcommittee
 Other filer roles designated on portal - Jennifer Fishback
o Local Court and Community Agencies
o Newspapers
 Registering as a self-represented litigant (not party to a case) – Jennifer Fishback
 E-service enhancement – Carolyn Weber
 E-filing Ex Parte Motions – Judge Reynolds
 Designation for bankruptcy stays – Judge Reynolds
 Determining e-service when judges file motions – Mike Smith
 Consolidated Pro-se workgroup update – Sharon Bock
E-Portal & User Group Meeting Summary
August 27, 2014
e-Portal Subcommittee

Portal Enhancements
Jennifer Fishback discussed the upcoming e-filing portal functional enhancements that have been approved by
the E-Filing Authority for implementation along with the release dates.
o New Filer User Groups - Additional filer roles have been added for the following users to file to each
county beginning 9/21/14:
 Court Reporter
 Mediator
 Mental Health Professional
 Process Server
 Law Enforcement – Credentialing/validation would be done by the point of contact of the entity
that facilitates the enrollment and administers the account. (i.e., Sherriff’s Office) Would not
be a publicly accessible role.
o Systematically Include State Attorney to E-Service List – The State Attorney is, by default, party to
criminal cases, so can be included by default on the E-service list. Systematically add the State Attorney
designated E-service email address to the E-service list on Criminal Division cases. Effective 10/24/14.
o Add Manage My E-Service Screen – A more efficient method to maintain the filer’s e-service list. An Eservice list maintenance screen was created to allow a filer to apply E-service designations and removal
to multiple lists at once. Only manipulates what the filer has filed on and there is no functionality
change. Effective 10/24/14.
o Reformat Document Filing Tab –The Documents Tab has been enhanced to allow document size limited
to 25 MB for appellant filings to be consistent with Trial Court filings. Streamline access to the
document group/type drop down lists by using a search function. Selecting the document drop down
values for Category and Type will be simplified for the filer. Effective 10/24/14.
o Clerk Filing to the Florida DOC – DOC added to portal to allow a secure means to transmit court
(sentencing) documents from Clerks of Court and streamline access to documents without delay. Tom
Hall, John Tomasino and Susan Dawson will review change prior to effective date of 10/24/14 to ensure
complies with Supreme Court AOSC14-18.
The E-portal Subcommittee members agreed unanimously with the recommendations of the e-filing portal
functional enhancements.
 Filer roles for General Magistrates and Hearing Officers
Jennifer explained the request of adding filer roles for General Magistrates and Hearing Officers on the portal.
The group discussed the different types of general magistrates and hearing officers and their respective filings.
Jennifer advised with the addition of each category on a filer role, there is a workload in mapping the document
descriptions. After further discussion it was determined the following would be completed:
 Filer roles will be added for General Magistrates and Hearing Officers
 Same access/availability as judges
 Credentialing will be done by trial court administration
The E-portal Subcommittee members unanimously agreed with the recommendation for adding filer roles for
General Magistrates and Hearing Officers.
 Subaccounts for judicial assistants
Judge Reynolds discussed the need for subaccounts for judicial assistants/support staff to file on behalf of the
judge. Further discussion led into a necessity for subaccounts for case managers as well. Judge Reynolds
wanted to ensure for tracking purposes, it can be determined who actually filed a document. Jennifer explained
the subaccount tracking is unique to each sign-in the judicial assistant/case manager is working under.
The E-portal Subcommittee members unanimously agreed with allowing trial court administration to create
subaccounts for judicial assistants and case managers to file on behalf of the judge.





Email Service vs. Maximum E-Filing size
Fernando Cabrera stated the earlier discussion on raising the appellate document size to 25MB, will assist
tremendously. Until the RJA makes a rule change there is no action from the e-portal subcommittee.
Statewide E-Portal User Authentication
Mike Smith submitted a proposal for the implementation of a statewide user authentication service based on
the e-Portal credential stored. This would allow both Court and Clerk systems throughout the state to offer
access on a user’s e-portal account. After further discussion on the setting up of access for this, it was
determined this issue would be best controlled under the Access Governance Board Subcommittee. Melvin Cox
said he is on the Access subcommittee and would assist in exploring f this issue.
Due to time constraints, the following items were deferred to the next e-portal subcommittee meeting.
Other filer roles added to the portal (Newspaper, Local court and community agencies)
E-Filing Ex Parte Motions
Bankruptcy Stays
User Group
 Viewing the court docket in the portal - Fernando Cabrera described the issue of Clerk’s offices using different
party identifiers. Melvin explained that all clerks abide by the uniform case numbering. Fernando continued
with the drop down menu category “other” being used excessively. Melvin said he knew the Clerks were aware
of the uniformity issue and the E-Authority Board is scheduled to meet on this issue in the near future.
Fernando commented on the change of having to check the box on e-service for parties on a case. Jennifer said
in order for parties to prove they were served by the filer, it was necessary to have the filer check each party
that was required to be served.
The following items were not discussed due to Bethany Gibson’s absence:
 Linking documents to previous filings
 Proposed orders
Meeting adjourned
Initial Category Headings – Fernando Cabrera
Hi Jeannine, here is a possible agenda item (or at least a discussion topic) for the November User-Group
meeting. The gist of the issue is that the initial category headings can be misleading (in this case the
wrong category was picked generating a filing fee nearly five times larger than it should have been)
From: Brew, Mary (AdmAst-Mia-LT)
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 8:58 PM
To: Cabrera, Fernando (BStf-Mia-Dkt)
Cc: Fernandez, Fernanda L. (AdmAst-Mia-LT)
Subject: Category issue
As part of our ongoing discussion of website pathways and guidance on the
Florida E-Filing Portal can be improved, I’d like to share with you a recent
experience that one of our Litigation assistants encountered in filing a new
Complaint from scratch on the site.
She was given a document to file that was a Complaint involving breach of
contract claims with regard to failure to pay a commission due on the successful
sale/purchase of a real property. After logging into the website and selecting
“New case,” she selected “Circuit Civil” from the Division list, and was then
presented with the following 5 options from a dropdown menu:





Circuit Civil
Negligence
Other Civil
Professional Malpractice
Real Property/Mortgage Foreclosure
She did not have a civil cover sheet to refer to in making the selections that would
generate the cover sheet online, so she reviewed the above 5 selections and
chose the last, “Real Property/Mortgage Foreclosure.” She believed that the “/”
here carried the meaning of “OR” as in “Real Property cases OR Mortgage
Foreclosure cases” and did not realize that the website instead intended “/” to
carry the meaning of “AND.” She believed she was correct in this selection
because, after having clicked “Real Property/Mortgage Foreclosure,” she then
reviewed the available 12 selections in a second dropdown menu and saw that
the menu contained 3 selections titled “Other Real Property Actions” that clearly
were segregated in meaning from the foreclosure actions and thus “/”
reasonably meant “OR” and included Real Property actions that were not
foreclosures.












Commercial Foreclosure $0-$50,000
Commercial Foreclosure $250,000 Or More
Commercial Foreclosure $50,001-$249,000
Homestead Residential Foreclosure $0-$50,000
Homestead Residential Foreclosure $250,000 Or More
Homestead Residential Foreclosure $50,001-$249,000
Non-Homestead Residential Foreclosure $0-$50,000
Non-Homestead Residential Foreclosure $250,000 Or More
Non-Homestead Residential Foreclosure $50,001-$249,000
Other Real Property Actions $0-$50,000
Other Real Property Actions $250,000 Or More
Other Real Property Actions $50,001-$249,000
She selected the next-to-last “Other Real Property Actions $250,000 Or More” on
the basis of the value of the commission under dispute, which is $2.3 Million. The
3 “Other” dropdowns were not labeled as foreclosure actions—as all of the
previous 9 were labeled—and there was no indication until review of the emailed
acceptance of the filing that the Court would classify the complaint as a
“Foreclosure Filing.”
She logged in later to the website to review available selections, and reviewed
what choices would have been presented had she picked any of: Circuit Civil;
Negligence; Other Civil or Professional Malpractice. Within “Negligence” there is
the sub-dropdown category of “Contracts and Indebtedness”—but it never
occurred to her while filing the Complaint that “Negligence” would be a viable
selection, since a breach of contract is a deliberate act and is NOT a negligence
action.
The main takeaways from this experience:
 “Contracts and Indebtedness” should occupy its own category and not be
subsumed within “Negligence.”
 The dropdown title of “Other Real Property Actions” following a listing of
“Foreclosure” actions is obviously inaccurate and should be revised.
 The use of slashes in place of precise language unnecessarily leads to
confusion.
The firm has submitted both an amended Civil Cover Sheet and the paperwork for
reversal of the extra filing fee that was charged due to misclassification of the
action as a foreclosure, but as you can imagine the paperwork requires time for
processing and the refund has yet to come through.
Mary J. Brew
e-Assistant
Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | 333 S.E. 2nd Avenue | Miami, FL 33131
Tel 305.579.7855 | Fax 305.579.0717 | Cell
[email protected] | www.gtlaw.com
Local Court and Community Agencies filing on portal
Hello, Chris.
Please see the request from some of the Clerks regarding access to the portal for “DOC, Probation and
Parole and our local pre-trial and probation offices”. May we please include this new set of users during
the subcommittee meeting at FCTC?
Thank you.
Jennifer
From: Carol A. Ford [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:30 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Jean A. Sperbeck; Sharon Longworth; Louis Morales
Subject: Local Court and Community Agencies being able to file on Statewide E-Portal
Good Morning Jennifer Fishback,
The Alachua County Clerk’s Office is receiving calls inquiring on how and when their agencies will be able
to efile through the state portal. I was wondering what the schedule is for adding DOC, Probation and
Parole and our local pre-trial and probation offices?
I have included Jean Sperbeck with our office, Sharon Longsworth, Probation Supervisor with Alachua
County Court Services and their IT Manager, Louis Morales for your update.
Thank you,
Carol Ford, Assistant Court Director
Criminal Department
Alachua County Clerk of the Court’s Office
Criminal Justice Courthouse
220 S. Main Street
Gainesville, Fl 32601
(352) 374-3669
[email protected]
Roles of filers added to the e-Portal
From: Tyler Winik [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:00 AM
To: Chris Blakeslee
Subject: FCTC
Chris,
A discussion has arisen this morning in our office; perhaps it would be prudent for the FCTC
to revisit the final “roles” of filers they wish to add to the ePortal list for September of this
year.
Many of our newspapers file their proofs of publication directly with our offices across the
state. We don’t specifically see “newspapers” listed for September, however, the FCTC may
wish to bring them on board.
Just a thought!
Hope this finds you well,
T.
Tyler Winik
Legal Affairs & Special Projects
Scott Ellis, Clerk
Brevard County Clerk of the Circuit Court
P.O. Box 999
Titusville, Florida 32781-0999
Telephone: (321) 637-5413
Direct Dial: (321) 633-7777
Facsimile: (321) 264-6940
Cell: (321) 652-0271
www.brevardclerk.us
Questions on e-Filing in Brevard? Please make sure to visit our e-Filing page today!
Self-Represented Litigant - Verification Process
From: Jennifer Fishback [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 9:27 AM
To: Chris Blakeslee
Subject: FW: Self-Represented Litigant Category
Hi, Chris.
I hope you are well.
Well, we have people registering as Pro Se filers when they are not party to a case. Can we discuss this
along with the other filer roles?
Regards,
Jennifer
From: Hutcherson, Gail [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 9:15 AM
To: Jennifer Fishback; Carolyn Weber
Subject: RE: Self-Represented Litigant Category
They basically are just filing proofs of publication, I think. In some instances, these
requests for publication may being sent directly to the newspaper by the Clerk. Most
times though, the publications should be returned to the Attorney or self-represented
litigant who requested the publication.
I doubt that the judge would question how it got filed, plus how would the Clerk or the
Judge even know who filed it, unless we went back to the portal to look up the filing ID.
Gail A. Hutcherson
Business Analyst - Clerk's Technology
Office of Ken Burke, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller
Pinellas County, Florida
315 Court Street, Clearwater, FL 33756
727-464-3081
[email protected] / www.mypinellasclerk.org
From: Jennifer Fishback [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 9:06 AM
To: Hutcherson, Gail; Carolyn Weber
Subject: RE: Self-Represented Litigant Category
Hi, Gail.
They most definitely should not use this role. The possibility of this being done by crafty people wanting
access to the E-service list was discussed at FCTC and by the E-Filing Authority. Without a Clerk’s office
validating the Pro Se account for validity that they are actually representing themselves on a case, we
have no other way to stop them systematically. This is going to need to be addressed by the policy
people at FCTC and E-Filing Authority Board.
What would a judge do if he/she saw this on a case?
Thank you.
Jennifer
From: Hutcherson, Gail [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 8:49 AM
To: Jennifer Fishback; Carolyn Weber
Subject: Self-Represented Litigant Category
Jennifer or Carolyn,
We have a newspaper who publishes for our county wanting to file at the portal using
the Self-Represented Litigant role. We do not feel that they are part of this class and
have told them another category in a future rollout would suit them better. Should they
be using the Self-Represented Litigant role even though they definitely are not a
litigant? Also, it appears that they are filing in several other counties using this role.
Any help you can provide is greatly appreciated…
Gail A. Hutcherson
Business Analyst - Clerk's Technology
Office of Ken Burke, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller
Pinellas County, Florida
315 Court Street, Clearwater, FL 33756
727-464-3081
[email protected] / www.mypinellasclerk.org
E-Service Enhancement
We have had requests for an enhancement to the E-service page. Attorneys want to be able to remove
themselves from an E-service List if they have been added by another attorney erroneously. We need
to revisit a business requirement that was made when we implemented E-service. One of the biggest
complaints we get from attorneys is that they cannot remove themselves from the E-service List when
added by another person. This was part of the design of the E-service project. We want to discuss with
the group to see if this business rule needs to be modified.
Thanks Jeannine,
Carolyn
E-Filing Portal Senior Analyst/Trainer
407-310-3592
Ex Parte Motions
From: Menendez, Manuel [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 4:32 PM
To: Munyon, Lisa T.
Cc: Catlin, Catherine
Subject: Re: ex parte motions
Yes, that would be good. Thank you.
On Jun 19, 2014, at 4:29 PM, "Munyon, Lisa T." <[email protected]> wrote:
I spoke with Sally Kest the admin in family. She indicated that the attorneys efile the emergency motions
and hand deliver courtesy copies to the judge’s chambers. It is taking our clerk 24 – 48 hours to docket
motions filed through the portal, so as long as the attorney did not e-serve the opposing side, they
would not know about the filing. Perhaps I should refer the issue to the e-portal subcommittee.
From: Menendez, Manuel [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 4:59 PM
To: Munyon, Lisa T.
Subject: ex parte motions
Lisa,
I just received the following information in an email from the Administrative Judge of our
Domestic Relations Division. Don’t know what other circuits are doing with this issue. Do you
think it’s something the TCBC should take up at our next meeting?
“Chief,
An issue surrounding e-filing has come up in two of the Domestic Relations Divisions. In
both instances an attorney wanted to file an ex parte motion for child pick up because of
imminent threat or danger. If filed through the portal, the opposing attorney could
potentially see that the motion was filed before the court rules on it and the Order is
served. In both instances, the judges had the attorney e-mail the motion to them. This is a
problem because the judge is then ruling on a motion that has not been filed. I spoke to
the Clerk’s office and they are willing to take paper ex parte motions so they can be
clocked in, but not scanned prior to the judge’s review and Order. This is a problem
because we will not be in compliance with the mandatory e-filing. Will you please take
this issue up with the powers that be to see how it can best be addressed?
Thank you,
Catherine M. Catlin, Circuit Judge
Domestic Relations Assoc. Administrative Judge
13th Judicial Circuit
800 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 429
Tampa, Florida 33602
813-276-2151”
Manuel Menendez, Jr.
Chief Judge, 13th Judicial Circuit of Florida
800 E. Twiggs St., Suite 602, Tampa, FL 33602
Designation for Bankruptcy Stays
From: Judge Lisa Taylor Munyon <[email protected]>
Date: August 26, 2014 at 4:05:22 PM EDT
To: Thomas Genung <[email protected]>
Cc: Alan Neubauer <[email protected]>, Chris Blakeslee <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Concern from one of our judges
I already passed this along to the e-portal committee. I suspect that there is some way for the portal to prioritize
bankruptcy suggestions if the local clerk wishes to have that done (it may take some programming). If you recall, we
have sent a formal request to the FCCC to develop time standards for electronic documents. Several years ago, the
legislature amended the statute so that the clerks do not have to consult with the court on time standards, they only
have to consult with the legislature.
From: Thomas Genung [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 4:02 PM
To: Munyon, Lisa T.; Christina Blakeslee ([email protected])
Cc: Alan Neubauer ([email protected])
Subject: Concern from one of our judges
Judge Munyon and Christina,
Please see the below comments from one of our judges:
When litigants file bankruptcy, the Clerk does not immediately check the portal (sometimes 24 hours or
more) and foreclosure sales have taken place in violation of the stay. I can undo the sale of course but third
party bidders are out quite a bit of nonrefundable fees when this happens. It causes litigation between the 3d
party bidder and the Clerk and I have reviewed the rules and cases and only find old cases that deny refunds of
the fees when the debtor filed their suggestion after the sale. In these cases, the debtor is filing before the
sale but the clerk doesn’t check the portal until after and claims that there is no mistake in doing that and they
are entitled to the fee! According to federal law, the sale is technically a nullity and void and probably need
to address this in an administrative order as well.
I believe there needs to be a 1) special filing or designation for Bankruptcy stays that allows the Clerk to be
alerted immediately and 2) that there be a maximum time period that the clerk must move or reject the
document once filed (not more than 2 days or whatever is reasonable).
With gratitude,
Thomas A. Genung, Esq.
Trial Court Administrator
19th Judicial Circuit Court
250 NW Country Club Dr., Ste. 217
Port St. Lucie, Florida 34986
Ph: 772-807-4370
Fax: 772-807-4377
Email: [email protected]
Determining E-Service when Judges file Motions – Mike Smith
From: Smith, Mike [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, October 6, 2014 10:10 AM
To: Brown,Betty J; Gerald Cates; Misra,Jill A; Wooten,Patricia D; Bell,Valarie L
Cc: Phillips, Joseph W; Horn,Mary E; Joseph Stelma, Jr.; Janocko, Eve; Heltzel, Kerry; Alan Neubauer; Chris Blakeslee
Subject: RE: missing Orders for Dependency Attys
Betty,
Understood. But is the service to the expert witnesses or the requesting attorney? Is it the responsibility of the attorney
who requested the testimony? My issue is that when we move to where the Judges are e-filing…and if they do not have
the email for the witness…they will not be able to e-serve the Order to those individuals unless the email is available
(provided) on the e-portal.
Additionally I am looking into where the responsibility lies because we will have that issue with any non-attorney who
will need eservice as we move forward with judicial e-filing. Those individuals will not have viewing access through AO
14-19 for certain cases such as adoption, etc. I would assume it would matter as to which User Group the witness may
or may not fall under, if any at all, other than Public.
I just read RULE 2.516 SERVICE OF PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTS and I for one need clarification. I understand the nonsecured access and maybe I am reading more into this than needed, but I do not want to assume that the Judges are
required to eservice those individuals or entities that are considered non-party. I think they may need some input on
this.
The current “rule” states that is indeed the responsibility of the “filer”.
I am forwarding this to my friends at OSCA for some clarity.
We have a FCTC meeting in a month and this may need to be discussed.
Jill’s comment may be a possible solution. As far as the attorneys filing Orders as Notices…above my pay-grade there!
By the way, our Circuit Civil Judges have started the e-filing process and we are training others starting next week.
Thanks,
Mike
From: Brown,Betty J [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 8:28 AM
To: Cates,Gerald J; Smith, Mike; Misra,Jill A; Wooten,Patricia D; Bell,Valarie L
Cc: Phillips, Joseph W; Horn,Mary E; Stelma, Joe; Janocko, Eve; Heltzel, Kerry
Subject: RE: missing Orders for Dependency Attys
I spoke with Kerry last week and explained that if the Judge signs the order then it’s up to the JA to send out the
conformed copies.
Betty J. Brown
Assistant to the Clerk of Courts
501 West Adams Street, Suite 1188
Room 1180
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
(904) 255-2033
Email: [email protected]
From: Cates,Gerald J
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 6:16 PM
To: Smith, Mike; Misra,Jill A; Wooten,Patricia D; Bell,Valarie L; Brown,Betty J
Cc: Phillips, Joseph W; Horn,Mary E; Stelma, Joe; Janocko, Eve; Heltzel, Kerry
Subject: RE: missing Orders for Dependency Attys
Kerry’s question regarding the expert witness is being addressed by Betty Brown. It is my understanding that these are
handled in Core on a case by case basis.
Gerald Cates
Assistant to the Clerk – IT Director
Duval County Clerk of Courts
501 W Adams St, Suite 5090
Jacksonville, FL 32202
904-255-1852
From: Smith, Mike [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 4:32 PM
To: Misra,Jill A; Wooten,Patricia D; Bell,Valarie L; Brown,Betty J
Cc: Phillips, Joseph W; Cates,Gerald J; Horn,Mary E; Stelma, Joe; Janocko, Eve
Subject: RE: missing Orders for Dependency Attys
Yes of course. We have another potential issue:
An attorney asks for an expert witness or eval from a Doctor. The order from the Judge gets e-filed by the Judge. The
expert cannot see the order especially if it is a Juvi case. Who is responsible to service or eservice that non-attorney
individual? I understand that if it is filed by an attorney JRA clearly obligate the filing attorney. Keep in mind that if a
name is not listed in eservice through the e-portal it can be added ad-hoc. I have some thoughts on this but the Judges
need to be involved in the discussion.
Let me know what works for you. I will run it by the Judge(s).
Mike
From: Misra,Jill A [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 1:28 PM
To: Smith, Mike; Wooten,Patricia D; Bell,Valarie L; Brown,Betty J
Cc: Phillips, Joseph W; Cates,Gerald J; Horn,Mary E
Subject: FW: missing Orders for Dependency Attys
Can we meet to discuss how to handle these Orders for Juvenile? We may be able to allow a specific Order to be filed by
attorneys.
From: Murphy, Tracey [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 12:26 PM
To: Misra,Jill A
Cc: Guarino, Christopher
Subject: RE: missing Orders for Dependency Attys
Good afternoon, Jill.
I was approached by a Guardian ad Litem attorney today, with whom I worked closely last summer. He
expressed a concern with the latest E-Portal upgrade; Orders are no longer an upload option for the Attorneys,
and since Judge Gooding conducts so many Ex Parte judicial hearings, the Attorneys are e-filing Orders as
Notices. The Clerks are then tasked with making the changes on the backend. Normal protocol would be for
the Attorneys to e-file the Orders themselves. Can this be modified for these dependency Attorneys ASAP?
The Attorney is Mr. Christopher Guarino, Guardian ad Litem of Jacksonville. If you require further
information regarding the agency’s needs, you can reach him at- [email protected] and his direct line is
255-8329.
Tracey Murphy
Assistant Librarian
Duval County Law Library
501 W. Adams St. Room 2291
Jacksonville, Fl. 32202
[email protected]
904.255-1150