From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baker v. Grant

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Nov 12, 1986
497 So. 2d 895 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

Opinion

No. 85-1539.

October 2, 1986. Rehearing Denied November 12, 1986.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Orange County, Claude R. Edwards, J.

Terry A. Brooks, Orlando, for appellant.

Robert L. Hutchinson, Orlando, for appellee.


The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's case with prejudice for violation of a court order, dated July 2, 1985, which required the plaintiff to obtain an attorney, notice for hearing a defense motion to dismiss, and serve said notice at least seven days prior to a hearing scheduled on August 22, 1985. This order is unreasonable. A defendant (or the court) can notice outstanding defense motions without requiring the plaintiff to do it.

Additionally, a civil claimant is not required, barring extraordinary circumstances, to be represented by counsel. Unless a case is presented which shows that a litigant has abused his pro se right of access to the court system so as to interfere with the effective administration of justice, a court cannot prevent a litigant in a civil matter from appearing on his own behalf. See Ray v. Williams, 55 Fla. 723, 46 So. 158 (1908); Platel v. Maguire, Voorhis Wells, P.A., 436 So.2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA) rev. denied, 437 So.2d 677 (Fla. 1983); Shotkin v. Cohen, 163 So.2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). For this reason, the lower court order which required the litigant to be represented by counsel in order to proceed with his case was invalid. Thus, the dismissal based upon violation of this order was erroneous.

REVERSED.

DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Baker v. Grant

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Nov 12, 1986
497 So. 2d 895 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)
Case details for

Baker v. Grant

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM H. BAKER, APPELLANT, v. ALAN G. GRANT, JR., APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Nov 12, 1986

Citations

497 So. 2d 895 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

Citing Cases

Hicks v. Hicks

There is no reason the court could not have ignored Simm's motion, and looked solely to Stanley's pleading as…

Clement v. Marcus, Stowell & Beye, Inc.

We hold the reasons advanced by the trial court in denying the motion to vacate and here by appellee are…