JUDITH HERSKOWITZ, ROBERT HERSKOWITZ, AND MARK HERSKOWITZ, PETITIONERS,
v.
MARVIN J. HERSKOWITZ, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF BERNARD J. HERSKOWITZ, DECEASED, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal quashed an administrative judge's order requiring petitioners to appear only through counsel, holding that the chief administrative judge lacked authority to restrict the statutory right to self-representation and that the order was issued without adequate notice or opportunity to be heard.
The court held that an administrative judge exceeded his authority in ordering parties to appear only through counsel. Absent clear record evidence supporting denial of self-representation rights (such as demonstrated abuse of court proceedings), parties have a statutory right to represent themselves that cannot be restricted by administrative order without proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
[1] A chief administrative judge exceeds administrative authority by ruling that parties cannot represent themselves.
[2] A party's statutory right to self-representation cannot be denied without notice of the proceeding and an opportunity to be heard.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Finding that the chief administrative judge exceeded his administrative authority in ruling that the parties could not represent themselves, we quash the order requiring petitioners to appear only through counsel.”
Establishes the core holding that administrative judges lack authority to restrict self-representation rights.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners Judith, Robert, and Mark Herskowitz sought to represent themselves in a proceeding involving the estate of Bernard J. Herskowitz. A chief …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Administrative Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Finding that the chief administrative judge exceeded his administrative authority in ruling that the parties could not represent themselves, we quash the order requiring petitioners to appear only through counsel. See Carr v. Grace, 321 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 945 (Fla.1977) (trial judge erred in ordering appellant to be represented by counsel or be subject to dismissal of her cause); § 454.18, Fla.Stat. (1983). This matter was not cognizable by an administrative judge whose duties are limited to certain internal court proceedings, such as the assigning and transferring of cases. Furthermore, even if the matter had been properly assigned to the administrative judge for full disposition, the lack of notice identifying the nature of the proceeding and the absence of an opportunity to be heard on the question of self-representation require us to quash the order. Quay Development, Inc. v. Elegante Building Corp., 392 So. 2d 901 (Fla.1981); Mayflower Investment Co. v. Brill, 137 Fla. 287, 188 So. 205 (1939); Fickle v. Adkins, 394 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Prunty v. State, 226 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969).
In any event, the present record does not support denial of the right to self-representation. This case is unlike the situation in Shotkin v. Cohen, 163 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA), appeal dismissed, 163 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), in which the court prohibited self-representation to prevent abuse of court proceedings and interference with the orderly process of judicial administration. Here, there is absolutely no basis in the record to support a ruling by any judge denying the statutory right of self-representation.
We find no impropriety in the order to assign.
Certiorari granted as to the order requiring appearance through counsel and denied as to the order to assign.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodriguez-Diaz v. Abate, 613 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…himself in Pro-pria Persona. The Court is undoubtably aware that this Order will be the subject of multiple appeals, if not litigation. The Court’s injunction pertains only to matters assigned to the undersigned Judge. See Herskowitz v. Herskowitz, 466 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Nonetheless, upon review by other higher Courts with broader jurisdiction, if they find that the reasons and basis for issuing the injunction are sound, this Court invites those Courts themselves to examine and to determine wheth…
-
ST. Paul Fire & Marine INS. Co. v. Marina BAY Resort Condo. Assoc., Inc., 794 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…attorney’s fees ... without its consent, [from] having two Florida law firms represent it in the lower tribunal, which attorney’s fees will not be recoverable” from any person (even on appeal from final judgment). See also Herskowitz v. Herskowitz, 466 So. 2d 8, 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (granting a petition for writ of certiorari and quashing an order requiring petitioners to appear only through counsel on grounds, inter alia, that the “record does not support denial of the right to self-representation”); Stat…
-
Berlant v. Nat'l Bank OF Fla., 527 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…k officer. National presented no other evidence to support the proposed figure. The amount in controversy was clearly unliqui-dated and was disputed by Berlant, thereby necessitating an evidentiary hearing on the issue. See Herskowitz v. Herskowitz, 466 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Fickle v. Adkins, 394 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Surratt v. Hodges, 389 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Pelle v. Diners Club, 287 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment and remand for furt…
Authorities Cited
- Mayflower Inv. Co. v. Brill, 137 Fla. 287 (Fla. 1939)
- Eve Pence v. Ennis, 163 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- THE Florida BAR v. Singer, 392 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1981)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 394 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Fickle v. Adkins, 394 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Carr v. Grace, 321 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Janney v. State, 226 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)
- Troup v. Bituminous Cas. Corp., 163 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)