RICHARD PLUMER II, APPELLANT,
v.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ETC., 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.
Richard Plumer II appealed a non-final trial court order denying his motion for default against U.S. Bank National Association in a foreclosure case with a counterclaim. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, but permitted Plumer to file an amended notice of appeal within 30 days.
The appellate court denied Plumer's appeal as filed because it failed to comply with Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.110(d) and 9.900(a). However, the court permitted Plumer 30 days to file an amended notice of appeal conforming to the rules, with the scope of review to include all rulings and matters adjudicated by the lower court, provided orders reflecting such rulings are attached to the amended notice.
[1] A pro se litigant is obligated to abide by appellate rules, even though they have the right to proceed pro se.
[2] A motion to take judicial notice of filings in a related lower court case will be denied when the record on appeal is governed by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20…
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 intelligence“pro se parties are obligated to abide by the appellate rules”
Establishes that self-representation does not excuse compliance with procedural rules.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlumer, proceeding pro se as a defendant in a foreclosure action brought by U.S. Bank, filed a motion seeking default on his counterclaim. The trial c…
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 Scope Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
On Appellant’s Motions
On or about May 3, 2017, pro se appellant, defendant and counter-plaintiff below, Richard Plumer II, appealed to this Court the lower court’s April 4, 2017 non-final order.-While not entirely clear from the record, it appears that this April 4, 2017 order denied Plumer’s motion seeking a default against appellee, plaintiff and counter-defendant below, U.S. Bank National Association on Plumer’s counterclaim.1 The trial court’s April 4, 2017 order also prevented Plumer from scheduling any more hearings before the trial court prior to the scheduled April 28, 2017 trial date on U.S. Bank’s foreclosure case and Plumer’s counterclaim. That trial was rescheduled by the trial court to May 12,2017.
The trial court docket indicates that, following a May-12,2017 non-jury trial, the trial court entered a final judgment ■ Of foreclosure for U.S. Bank. It is unclear from the face of the trial court’s judgment how Plumer’s counterclaim was adjudicated, if at all.
On May 16, 2017, Plumer filed a motion asking this Court to take judicial notice "of filings in a related lower court case. We deny that motion. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9,200 prescribes how the record on appeal is assembled by the lower court clerk and how the parties may include or exclude items from the record.
On May 18, 2017, Plumer filed a motion with this Court seeking a new trial and other relief from the trial court’s May 12, 2017 final judgment. We deny this motion, without prejudice, to Plumer filing, within 30 days, an amended Notice of Appeal that conforms to the requirements of Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.110(d) and 9.900(a). If Plumer chooses to file an Amended Notice of Appeal seeking review of the trial court’s May 12, 2017 final judgment, this Court’s scope of review also includes any ruling or matter adjudicated by-the. lower court in the proceedings, assuming:that orders reflecting any such challenged rulings are attached to the Amended Notice of Appeal. Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(h), 9.900(a).
We note that Plumer’s initial May 3, 2017 Notice of Appeal — purporting to appeal the trial court’s single-page, April 4, 2017 non-final order — contained some 148 pages of argument and other extraneous material outside the scope of rules 9.110(d) and 9.900(a). The parameters governing a party’s briefings to this Court are defined in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.210, and, as noted above, the record on appeal is governed by rule 9.200. The parties are required to abide by these rules.
We recognize that Plumer is proceeding in this appeal pro se, as is his right. Nevertheless, pro se parties are obligated to abide by the appellate rules. See Greenfield v. Westmoreland, 156 So.3d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).
So ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Romero v. Midland Funding LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…epared and transmitted in accordance with these rules shall be on the petitioner or the appellant.”). While we recognize that Romero is pro se, “pro se parties are [still] obligated to abide by the appellate rules.” Plumer v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 231 So. 3d 512, 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); see also Kohn v. City of Miami Beach, 611 So. 2d 538, 539 (Fla. 3d DCA ---PAGE 6--- a summary judgment hearing will not necessarily thwart an appellate review of a summary judgment.” Johnson v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co…
-
Boksa v. Hogan (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…rd or any transcripts.1 And the argument does not include any citation to authority. Boksa was given ample opportunity to comply with the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure but has failed to do so. See, e.g., Plumer v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 231 So. 3d 512, 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“[P]ro se parties are obligated to abide by the appellate rules.”). Therefore, consistent with our order striking Boksa’s first initial brief for failure to comply with Rule 9.210, we grant the motion to dismiss and dis…
-
Woods v. Loandepot.com, LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…btain appellate review, alleged errors relied upon for reversal must be raised clearly, concisely, and separately as points on appeal.”) (quoting Singer v. Borbua, 497 So. 2d 279, 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)); see also Plumer II v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 231 So. 3d 512, 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“[P]ro se parties are obligated to abide by the appellate rules.”) (citing Greenfield v. Westmoreland, 156 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)).…
Authorities Cited
- Greenfield v. Wynn Westmoreland (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)