MICHELE FRYE HENDRIXSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STEPHEN GEORGE FRYE, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pro Se Litigant Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the trial court’s order to the extent it bars Appellant Michele Frye Hendrixson from filing any future pleadings not signed by a member in good standing with the Florida Bar because the trial court failed to give appellant notice and an opportunity to be heard before ordering the prohibition. See, e.g., Tasse v. Simpson, 842 So. 2d 793, 796 (Fla.2003); Lussy v.
Fourth Dist. Court of Appeal, 828 So. 2d 1026, 1026-27 (Fla.2002); Jackson v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 790 So. 2d 398, 399 (Fla.2001); Johnson v. Wilbur, 981 So. 2d 479, 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Favreau v. Favreau, 940 So. 2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); see also State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48-49 (Fla.1999) (recognizing that “denying a pro se litigant the opportunity to file future petitions is a serious sanction” and holding that “it is important for courts to first provide notice and an opportunity to respond” in order to protect the litigant’s right of access to the courts and provide appellate courts with “an enhanced ability to determine whether [any subsequent] denial of access is an appro priate sanction under the circumstances”).
The order on appeal is affirmed otherwise.
BROWNING, C.J., WOLF, and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 221 So. 3d 786 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…court to order the prohibition without providing Appellant notice or a reasonable opportunity to respond. See, e.g., State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999); Jackson v. Parkhouse, 826 So. 2d 478, 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Hendrixson v. Frye, 994 So. 2d 1255, 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The order on appeal is otherwise affirmed. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ROBERTS, WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ„ CONCUR.…
-
Pullins v. Britton, 80 So. 3d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…others,” Lussy v. Fourth District Court of Appeal, 828 So. 2d 1026, 1027 (Fla.2002), this record does not show whether appellant was provided the requisite notice and opportunity to be heard before imposition of the sanction. See Hendrixson v. Frye, 994 So. 2d 1255, 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (citing State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48-49 (Fla.1999) (recognizing that “denying a pro se litigant the opportunity to file future petitions is a serious sanction” and holding that “it is important for courts to first pr…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Jackson v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 790 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2001)
- Lussy v. Fourth Dist. Court OF Appeal, 828 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 2002)
- Branch v. Dep't OF Health, 940 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Austin v. Tasse, 842 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 2003)
- Johnson v. Wilbur, 981 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)