GEORGE L. ONETT, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT AHOLA AND GENEVA MARIA AHOLA, 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 court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for continuance and stay, as the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice.
[1] A trial court's ruling on a motion for continuance is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
[2] An appellate court must determine if the denial of a continuance created an injustice for the movant when reviewing a trial court's decision for abuse of discretion.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 appellant, proceeding pro se, argued the trial court abused its discretion by reserving ruling on his motion for continuance and stay when his cou…
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 Motion To Stay cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this pro se appeal, George Onett argues that the trial court abused its discretion in reserving ruling on his motion for a continuance of trial and his motion for a sixty day stay of the proceedings at the time the court granted his counsel’s motion to withdraw, and later granting Onett only a thirty day continuance of trial. We disagree and therefore affirm the summary judgment and dismissal orders entered in this case.
“A motion for continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and, absent abuse of that discretion the court’s decision will not be reversed on appeal.” Ziegler v. Klein, 590 So. 2d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion, the appellate court must decide, among other things, whether the denial of the continuances created an injustice for the movant. Fleming v. Fleming, 710 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The abuse of discretion standard also applies to rulings on motions for stay. U .S. Borax, Inc. v. Forster, 764 So. 2d 24, 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), rev. denied, 751 So. 2d 1255 (Fla.2000).
Onett has failed to articulate how the trial court’s rulings have caused him prejudice, and we are unable to gleam any prejudice from the instant record since the court took no dispositive action during the five months following the date when On-ett’s counsel filed his motion to withdraw, and the case never went to trial because the court granted one appellee summary final judgment and the other appellee a dismissal based upon Onett’s repeated failures to comply with explicit discovery orders. To the extent that Onett suggests that he had an absolute right to receive an unlimited stay or continuance of the proceedings unless or until he was able to secure replacement counsel, his argument fails. There is no absolute right to counsel in a civil proceeding. See State v. Weeks, 166 So. 2d 892 (Fla.1964). Accordingly, Onett has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the trial court abused its discretion.
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, W., PETERSON, and PALMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Myers v. Siegel, 920 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…resultant inability of Mr. Tietig to adequately represent Myers at trial without Mrs. Tietig’s assistance. Although trial courts are endowed with rather broad discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a motion for continuance, Onett v. Ahola, 780 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), the exercise of that discretion is not absolute. Id. We are charged with the task of reviewing a court’s decision on a continuance motion and setting it aside if 'we determine the trial court abused its discretion. Id. This cour…
-
Dep't OF Child. & Families v. L.D. and J.S., 840 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…ition: it simply granted a stay for a definite period of time. The decision to grant or deny a stay is based on the trial court’s discretion and, absent a clear showing of abuse of that discretion, the decision will not be disturbed. Onett v. Ahola, 780 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Here, the Department did not object to the 90-day stay. Moreover, it has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the stay. Hence, the Department has failed to demonstrate that the trial cour…
-
Zolinda Kiriakidis v. Kiriakos Kiriakidis, 855 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…scretion in entering an order compelling payment of the former attorney’s fees pri- or to appearance of new counsel for the wife. We conclude that despite the fact that the right to counsel is not absolute in a civil proceeding, see Onett v. Ahola, 780 So. 2d 979, 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (citing State v. Weeks, 166 So. 2d 892 (Fla.1964)), the court’s order precluding the wife from obtaining new counsel prior to paying her former attorney’s fees, combined with its refusal to grant the wife additional time in…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Weeks, 166 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1964)
- Fleming v. Fleming, 710 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Ira Peter Ziegler v. Klein, 590 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- U.S. Borax, Inc. v. Forster, 764 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)