PLUMA HUNTER, APPELLANT,
v.
CHRYSLER CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 trial court's denial of an order of insolvency based on failure to join the county is reversed because county joinder is not required by statute or rule.
Pluma Hunter sought an order of insolvency to appeal without paying costs. The trial court denied the motion, stating the county had not been joined. …
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.
PETERSON, Judge.
Pluma Hunter requests that this court order the trial court to act on her Amended Motion for Leave to Appeal Without Payment of Costs, pursuant to Rule 9.430, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The trial court had denied the original motion for an order of insolvency and stated that the motion was “denied without prejudice because the plaintiff has not joined the County of Volusia which County would be compelled to pay the costs if the motion were granted.” We reverse.
We do not address the trial court’s alleged inaction on Hunter’s amended motion but treat her request for review as one directed to the original order denying an order of insolvency. That order complied with the requirement that the trial court state the reason for denial, but the stated reason is insufficient to uphold the denial. Neither section 57.081, Florida Statutes (1987), nor Rule 9.430 requires that a county be given notice of an indigent’s motion for an order or certificate of indigency.
The trial court’s intent to protect the funds of the county was commendable, but we find no support for joining the county. Perhaps the reason is that administrative and legal costs of review and attendance of county personnel at hearings would outweigh any savings that might be attributed to denial of applications made by a few solvent appellants who would falsify financial data.
The order of denial of the certificate or order of indigency is reversed, and the matter may proceed before this court without the necessity of paying the fees and costs contemplated by section 57.081 and Rule 9.430.
REVERSED.
W. SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reyes v. State, 952 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…ed in denying his motion to suppress since he was not adequately advised of his Miranda rights prior to giving a statement” was not preserved for appeal because it was not the “specific, contemporaneous objection” he made below); Forrester v. State, 565 So. 2d 391, 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (holding that appellant’s argument “that the use of the sniff dog violated his constitutional right to privacy” was not preserved for appeal because it was not part of his general argument made in his motion to suppress that…
-
I.R.C. v. State, 968 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…; San Martin v. State, 705 So. 2d 1337, 1345 (Fla.1997); Reyes v. State, 952 So. 2d 1262, 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Cady v. State, 817 So. 2d 948, 949 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Phillips v. State, 877 So. 2d 912, 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Forrester v. State, 565 So. 2d 391, 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Here, of course, consideration of the lawfulness of the detention is precluded not only because that specific basis for reversal was not preserved but also because it was not argued by I.R.C. on appeal. The dissent also s…
-
McCELLAN v. State, 768 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…across the street when the patrol car approached and prevented his direct passage. Therefore, the issue was not preserved for appellate review. § 924.051, Fla. Stat. (1997); Green v. State, 711 So. 2d 69, 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Forrester v. State, 565 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). If the question were considered on the merits, we would conclude that the trial court properly relied on facts in the record demonstrating that the officers conducted a lawful stop after observing a traffic infraction. Whren v.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence