TANYA R. SHAW-MESSER, APPELLANT,
v.
MARK A. MESSER, 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.
A trial court must state in writing its reasons for denying a request for indigency status on appeal, and failure to do so requires reversal and remand.
[1] A trial court's order denying a request for indigency status on appeal must include written reasons for the denial as required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.43…
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 intelligenceShaw-Messer sought to be declared indigent for purposes of appeal and to proceed in forma pauperis, but the trial court denied her request without sta…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.430 cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER DENYING APPELLANT’S
MOTION FOR ORDER OF INDIGENCY ON APPEAL AND TO.
ALLOW APPELLANT TO PROCEED WITH APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.430, Shaw-Messer seeks review of an order which denied her request to be declared indigent for purposes of appeal. The order simply states that the application by Shaw-Messer is denied. However, the rule provides that the trial court must state in writing its reasons for the denial. Since that was not done, we reverse the order and remand this cause to the trial court. See A.G. v. Dept. of Children and Families, 721 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
Shaw-Messer alleges in her motion for review that the trial judge denied her request because he thought her appeal was without merit. That is not substantiated by the documents before us and thus we do not simply reverse.1
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ANTOON, C.J., W. SHARP, and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . We agree that this reason would be an improper basis to deny a request for indigency status. See Daniels v. State, 441 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). See also Russaw v. State, 600 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Daniels v. State, 441 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- A.G. natural father of C.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 721 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Russaw v. State, 600 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)