DANNY LEE ADAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
DEBBIE JO ADAMS A/K/A DEBBIE ZARATE, 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.
The Third District Court of Appeal issued an order to show cause regarding Danny Lee Adams' in forma pauperis status due to alleged abuse of the judicial system through excessive filings in postjudgment dissolution of marriage proceedings. The court granted in forma pauperis status but warned that future abuse would result in denial of the privilege.
The court granted in forma pauperis status to Adams but warned that future abuse of the appellate process would result in denial of the privilege. The court clarified that not all post-judgment orders are appealable and that disagreement with rulings is not a proper basis for seeking judge disqualification.
[1] A court may deny in forma pauperis status to litigants who abuse the judicial system.
[2] Not all post-judgment orders are immediately appealable.
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“this court has rejected the proposition that all post-judgment orders are appealable under Rule 9.130(a)(4)”
Establishes that not all post-judgment orders can be immediately appealed, directly addressing Adams' misunderstanding of appellate procedure.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDanny Lee Adams filed fifteen appeals or petitions in the Third District Court of Appeal since 2002 arising from postjudgment litigation in a dissolut…
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 In Forma Pauperis cases and more on FLexlaw
On Order to Show Cause
On the Court’s own motion, the Court issued an order to Danny Lee Adams to show cause why the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis should not be revoked for abuse of the judicial system. See Attwood v. State, Dep't of Corr., 660 So.2d 358, 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The appellant is engaged in postjudgment litigation arising out of a dissolution of marriage. He has filed fifteen appeals or petitions in this Court since 2002. The Court may deny in forma pauperis status for litigants who abuse the judicial system. See id. at 360.
On review of appellant Danny Lee Adams’ litigation history in this Court and his response to this Court’s Order to Show *251Cause, it appears that appellant is under the impression that all rulings in post-judgment proceedings can be immediately appealed. That is not so.
As explained in Little Arch Creek Properties, Inc. v. Medical Facilities Development, Inc., 698 So.2d 926, 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997):
[T]his court has rejected the proposition that all post-judgment orders are appealable under Rule 9.130(a)(4). In Grafman v. Grafman, 488 So.2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the court explained that where a post-judgment motion in effect initiates a new proceeding which will culminate in a new final order, the non-final orders entered in the new proceeding “must be considered non-final orders entered prior to final order, not after final order, and accordingly are not appealable as ‘non-final orders entered after final order’ under Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(4).”
See also Philip Morris Inc. v. Jett, 802 So.2d 353, 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Philip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice § 22.15, at 463-466 (2006); 3 Fla. Jur.2d Appellate Revieiv § 79 (2005).
In addition, it has been plainly established that disagreement with rulings is not a proper basis to seek disqualification of a trial judge, see Johnson v. Johnson, 725 So.2d 1209, 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), or general magistrate, and any such request by appellant is therefore non-meritorious.
In light of appellant’s misapprehension we exercise our discretion to grant in forma pauperis status to defendant at this time. However, we advise appellant that any further abuse of the appellate process will result in our denial of in forma pauper-is status.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. Johnson, 725 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Grafman v. Grafman, 488 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Attwood v. State, 660 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Philip Morris Inc. v. Saundra K. Jett, 802 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Little ARCH Creek Props., Inc. v. Med. Facilities Dev., Inc., 698 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)