WILLIAM H. BAKER, APPELLANT,
v.
ALAN G. GRANT, JR., APPELLEE
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.
Florida appellate court reversed dismissal of plaintiff's civil case, holding that a trial court cannot require a pro se litigant to obtain counsel or dismiss the case for failure to comply with such a requirement absent extraordinary circumstances showing abuse of the pro se right.
A trial court cannot require a civil litigant to be represented by counsel or dismiss the case for violation of such a requirement unless the litigant has abused the pro se right so as to interfere with the effective administration of justice.
[1] A civil litigant has a constitutional or statutory right to appear pro se and cannot be required to obtain counsel unless the litigant has abused that right so as to inte…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court issued an order on July 2, 1985, requiring the plaintiff to obtain an attorney and serve notice of a defense motion to dismiss at leas…
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 Civil Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s case with prejudice for violation of a court order, dated July 2, 1985, which required the plaintiff to obtain an attorney, notice for hearing a defense motion to dismiss, and serve said notice at least seven days prior to a hearing scheduled on August 22, 1985. This order is unreasonable. A defendant (or the court) can notice outstanding defense motions without requiring the plaintiff to do it.
Additionally, a civil claimant is not required, barring extraordinary circumstances, to be represented by counsel. Unless a case is presented which shows that a litigant has abused his pro se right of access to the court system so as to interfere with the effective administration of justice, a court cannot prevent a litigant in a civil matter from appearing on his own behalf. See Ray v. Williams, 55 Fla. 723, 46 So. 158 (1908); Platel v. Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., 436 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA) rev. denied, 437 So. 2d 677 (Fla.1983); Shotkin v. Cohen, 163 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). For this reason, the lower court order which required the litigant to be represented by counsel in order to proceed with his case was invalid. Thus, the dismissal based upon violation of this order was erroneous.
REVERSED.
DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clement v. Marcus, 516 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…ril in spite of the address change); (3) he failed to obtain substitute counsel (he had not been instructed to obtain counsel, and “a civil claimant is not required, barring extraordinary circumstances, to be represented by counsel,” Baker v. Grant, 497 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); and (4) appellant failed to appear or otherwise defend himself at trial in spite of counsel's contact two weeks before trial (appellant had no notice that a specific date had been set nor was he told the calendar call date). Fin…
-
Hicks v. Hicks, 715 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…ason the court could not have ignored Simm’s motion, and looked solely to Stanley’s pleading as sufficient to constitute a pro se motion for rehearing. If Simms could not represent Stanley, surely Stanley could represent himself. See Baker v. Grant, 497 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). REVERSED. COBB, J., and ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge, concur. . Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(b). . Restrictions on the right to access to the courts should be construed so as to favor the constitutional right. G.B.B. Investments Inc.…
Authorities Cited
- Ray v. Williams, 55 Fla. 723 (Fla. 1908)
- Platel v. Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., 436 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Eve Pence v. Ennis, 163 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)