KEVIN C. BERTRAM, APPELLANT,
v.
U.S. BANK N.A., AS TRUSTEE, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed dismissal of lis pendens and denial of foreclosure relief but reversed the portion restricting pro se filings because the trial court failed to provide notice and opportunity to respond before imposing the sanction.
A trial court must provide notice and an opportunity to respond before restricting a pro se litigant's access to file further pleadings in the circuit court.
[1] A trial court must provide a pro se litigant with notice and an opportunity to respond before restricting the litigant's right to file further pleadings in the circuit co…
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 intelligence“due process requires that courts first provide notice and an opportunity to respond before imposing this extreme sanction”
Court explaining the constitutional requirement before restricting pro se litigant access to courts
Kevin Bertram appealed a final order discharging his notice of lis pendens and denying his motion for relief from a foreclosure judgment. The trial co…
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 Notice And Opportunity To Respond cases and more on FLexlaw
Kevin C. Bertram appeals the final order discharging his notice of lis pendens and denying his motion for relief from the final judgment of foreclosure. Because we find no merit in Bertram’s arguments on appeal, we affirm.
However, to the extent that the order on appeal may bar Bertram from further filings in the circuit court, we reverse. The record does not reflect that the circuit court provided Bertram with notice or an opportunity to respond. See Owens v. Forte, 135 So.3d 445, 445 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (citing State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48-49 (Fla.1999) (requiring that pro se litigants receive notice and opportunity to respond before restricting their access to courts); and Delgado v. Hearn, 805 So.2d 1017, 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (applying Spencer to civil causes of action filed by pro se litigants)). Although we do not pass on whether Bertram’s filings rise to the level of an abuse of process, “due process requires that courts first provide notice and an opportunity to respond before imposing this extreme sanction.” Delgado, 805 So.2d at 1018. Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the order barring Bertram from further pro se filings in the circuit court.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
ALTENBERND, WALLACE, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Zenen D. Delgado v. Tama P. Hearn, 805 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Owens v. Forte, 135 So. 3d 445 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)