EDNA JANE FAVREAU, APPELLANT,
v.
ANNA MAY FAVREAU, 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.
Edna Favreau appealed an order barring her from making pro se (self-represented) filings in probate proceedings involving her ex-husband's estate. The court held the order was not appealable as a final order in a probate matter and also was not a reviewable non-final order, and further denied her request for certiorari relief on the merits.
The order is neither a final, appealable order in probate proceedings nor a reviewable non-final order, and certiorari relief is also unavailable because the appellant failed to establish the requisites for issuance of the writ. The court rejected the argument that requiring attorney representation constitutes a complete denial of access to courts.
[1] An order prohibiting further pro se filings in a probate proceeding is not a final order subject to appellate review under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(a)(2)…
[2] A court possesses the inherent power to prevent abuse of court procedure that impedes the administration of justice.
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“A court has the inherent power to prevent abuse of court procedure which interferes with the effective administration of justice.”
Establishes the legal foundation for the trial court's authority to impose restrictions on frivolous filings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdna Favreau, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal challenging a circuit court order that prohibited her from further pro se filings in a probate a…
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 Final Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, C.J.
Edna Jane Favreau (Edna) filed a notice of appeal, pro se, from an order entered by the Circuit Court of Volusia County, Probate Division, which prohibits her from further pro se filings in a probate proceeding involving the estate of her ex-husband, Walter Frederick Favreau. Two circuit judges have entered similar orders in other litigation, barring Edna from further pro se filings based on abusive and frivolous court filings.
The order does not dispose of the probate action, nor can it be deemed final in any way as to Edna since it does not preclude Edna from any further filings, only pro se filings. As such, the order is not reviewable by appeal as per Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(a)(2), which authorizes appellate review “of orders entered in probate ... matters that finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person as defined in the Florida Probate Code.” While in a probate matter several final orders may be entered during the course of proceedings that address different issues and different persons, see Committee Notes to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110, the order here is in no way final in nature.
The order is not a reviewable non-final order. See Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. The remaining avenue for review is certiorari but Edna has failed to establish the requisites for issuance of the writ in this case. A court has the inherent power to prevent abuse of court procedure which interferes with the effective administration of justice. Platel v. Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., 436 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). A requirement that pleadings be accompanied by an attorney’s signature is not a restraint which amounts to a complete denial of access to courts. Id.; May v. Barthet, 886 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); see also § 68.093, Fla. Stat. (2005) (the Florida Vexatious Litigant Law). The trial court followed procedural requirements by issuing an order to show cause, affording Edna an opportunity to explain why she should not be barred from future pro se filings. Edna has failed to establish a clear departure from the essential requirements of law resulting in irreparable harm. See Cape Canaveral Hospital, Inc. v. Leal, 917 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
Accordingly, we treat the notice of appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari and deny the petition.
CERTIORARI DENIED.
GRIFFIN and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Platel v. Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., 436 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Cape Canaveral Hosp., Inc. v. Jorge J. Leal, M.D., 917 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- MAY v. Barthet, 886 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)