FRAYA SANDOVAL RODRIGUEZ
v.
GERMAN LUIS ORTEGA GONZALEZ
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.
A trial court violates a litigant's due process rights by requiring her to proceed pro se to trial in a complex family law matter before the period afforded to obtain counsel has lapsed.
[1] A trial court violates a litigant's due process right to counsel by requiring the litigant to proceed pro se to trial on complex issues before the time period afforded to…
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“the trial court violated [Sheinheit's] due process rights by giving her twenty days to hire an attorney while at the same time forcing her to proceed pro se at a hearing in which all of the issues that required the assistance of an attorney were to be decided.”
Court's citation to Sheinheit v. Cuenca explaining the due process violation
The wife's attorney withdrew six days before trial, citing irreconcilable differences with the wife and her forensic accountants. The trial court gran…
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 Attorney Withdrawal cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed July 29, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-2185
Lower Tribunal No. 24-18532-FC 04
Fraya Sandoval Rodriguez,
Appellant,
vs.
German Luis Ortega Gonzalez, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ivonne Cuesta, Judge.
Moreno Perdomo, PLLC, Arlenys Perdomo, and Gino Moreno, for appellant.
Guernsey Law, PLLC, and Daniel P. Guernsey, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The wife challenges a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The final judgment adopted the parenting plan proposed by the husband, awarded him child support, and denied the wife's request for durational alimony and child support in excess of the operative guidelines. Six days before trial, the wife's attorney withdrew from representation with permission from the lower court, citing “significant irreconcilable differences” between the wife, her counsel, and her team of forensic accountants. The withdrawal order granted the wife thirty days to procure new counsel. An attorney briefly appeared on a limited basis during that period, but the wife ultimately proceeded to trial pro se. Finding these facts virtually indistinguishable from those set forth in Sheinheit v. Cuenca, 840 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), we are constrained to reverse. In Sheinheit, we found that requiring a litigant to proceed to trial self-represented before the period afforded to obtain counsel lapsed constitutes a violation of due process. Id. at 1123 (“[T]he trial court violated [Sheinheit's] due process rights by giving her twenty days to hire an attorney while at the same time forcing her to proceed pro se at a hearing in which all of the issues that required the assistance of an attorney were to be decided.”); id. (“[T]he opportunity to be represented by counsel in both civil and criminal proceedings has been equated with due process.” (quoting Times Publ’g Co. v. Burke, 375 So. 2d 297, 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979))). We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial. Reversed and remanded.
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Times Publ'g Co. & Jane Baumann v. The Honorable Charles W. Burke, 375 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Gianna Sheinheit v. Cuenca, 840 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)