JACQUELINE CARR, APPELLANT,
v.
RUTH FREIDAY GRACE ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Appellant Jacqueline Carr appeals the dismissal of her case and a cost judgment entered against her after the trial judge ordered her to appear with counsel or face dismissal. The court held that while pro se representation is permitted under Florida law, the trial judge erred in making counsel representation a condition for proceeding, thereby reversing the dismissal order and vacating the cost judgment.
A trial judge errs by imposing counsel representation as a condition for proceeding and threatening dismissal for non-compliance. However, pro se litigants remain bound by all applicable court rules and civil procedure rules. The cost judgment was premature and must await the outcome of the main cause.
[1] A trial court errs by conditioning a plaintiff's right to proceed on the requirement that they appear with counsel, when the plaintiff has the statutory right to represen…
[2] A party representing themselves in court remains subject to the lawful rules and discipline of that court.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“any person, whether an attorney or not, may conduct their own cause in any court of this state, subject to the lawful rules and discipline of such court”
Establishes the statutory right of pro se representation under Florida law, which the trial judge violated
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant, representing herself, filed suit as plaintiff in trial court. The trial judge entered an order on September 27, 1974, conditioning continue…
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 Right To Self-Representation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, brings these consolidated appeals to review an order of dismissal -entered October 30, 1974, and a cost judgment, entered December 11, 1974, in favor of appellees, defendants in the trial court.
Among the many assignments of error designated by appellant, representing herself in these appeals, is one contending the trial judge erred in entering an order on pending motions dated September 27, 1974 which contained the condition that appellant appear and be represented by counsel of her choice ready for trial on October 28, 1974 and that upon failure to appear with counsel said cause would be subject to dismissal upon appropriate motion and order of the court. Predicated upon this order and appellant’s failure to appear with counsel the trial judge subsequently entered the order of dismissal from which appellant appeals.
In support of appellant’s contention, she cites § 454.18, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., which provides that, inter alia, any person, whether an attorney or not, may conduct their own cause in any court of this state, subject to the lawful rules and discipline of such court.
Based upon the facts in the record before this Court, it appears the trial judge erred by imposing a condition in his order that appellant be represented by counsel or be subject to dismissal of her cause, which dismissal in fact occurred by the trial judge’s order dated October 30, 1974. However, also based on our review of the record in this appeal, we feel it obligatory to underline for appellant in § 454.18, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., upon which she relies, that part which provides she may represent herself "subject to the lawful rules and discipline of such court.’’ Appellant’s self representation does not relieve her of the obligation to comply with any appropriate rules of the court and the rules of civil procedure.
Based upon our decision above, we conclude that the cost judgment entered by the trial judge was premature and should await the outcome of the main cause on the merits.
We have considered the record, all points in the briefs and arguments of counsel in the light of the controlling principles of law, and have concluded that the trial judge erred in entering the order of dismissal dated October 30, 1974. Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the order of dismissal appealed is reversed and the cost judgment is vacated.
Reversed in part and vacated in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vicente Martinez v. Fraxedas, 678 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…v. City of Miami Beach, 611 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(finding no error in dismissing pro se’s complaint with prejudice after four amendments; pro se litigant should not be treated differently from litigant represented by counsel); Carr v. Grace, 321 So. 2d 618, 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)(“Ap-pellant’s self representation does not relieve her of the obligation to comply with any appropriate rules of the court and the .rules of civil procedure.”), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 945 (Fla.1977); see also § 454.18, Fla.…
-
Kahn v. Milon, 332 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…as plaintiffs retain, in effect, counsel separate and independent of plaintiff Jerry Kahn. The law of Florida is well established that a party to a cause may act as his own attorney. See § 454.18, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. and Carr v. Grace, Fla.App.1975, 321 So. 2d 618. Further, in general, any person who has the legal capacity to contract may employ an attorney of his choice. See 3 Fla.Jur. Attorneys at Law § 25 (1955). Thus, we find that appellant Jerry Kahn may represent himself in this action and if appellants…
-
Kohn v. City OF Miami Beach, 611 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…ably competent attorney. Section 454.-18, Florida Statutes (1991) clearly provides “any person ... may conduct his own [*540] cause in any court of this state ... subject to the lawful rules and discipline of such court.” Likewise, in Carr v. Grace, 321 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 945 (1977), we observed a party’s self-representation does not relieve the party of the obligation to comply with any appropriate rules of civil procedure.1 Application of any lesser standard can only fo…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence