Procedure Snafu: Implication of Judge's Order in Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.

Henry

New Member
The situation is: We're talking about your Motion that you send to the opposing side, but not file with the court. The opposing side sets your Motion for hearing at a Uniform Motion Calender (non-evidentary hearing). You cancel the hearing, but the opposing side won't agree and tells you that he's going in front of the Judge anyway. You explain to the Judge that you sent the Motion as a courtesy to the other side to start negiotiations, and now you want to file the issue as a separate complaint. The Judge says that you are going to be assessed attorney 's fees and costs under FL 57.105. The Judge doesn't mention how much is awarded but tells the opposing side to prepare the Order.
Because the Judge mentions the words "frivilous motion" without the merits of the Motion even being heard, what are the implications of the Judge's Order, and how could it be used by a very nasty opposing side? Should it be appealed or should something be filed on the record to protect the integrity of the future complaint that the Motion is based on?

Statute reference:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...&Search_String=&URL=Ch0057/SEC105.HTM&Title=->2002->Ch0057->Section%20105
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I understand the case so it's difficult to comment. Why did you cancel the hearing that was set up with the court as a result of your motion? Was it merely a compliance conference? What was the "motion" that was made? Usually this happens only if there was a material and substantive delay or injury, not when there is some extremely minor issue. It would seem that there is a greater history here.

I think you can see why it's difficult to comment without knowing what you are commenting about in a vague manner and describing the effect but little details about the cause.
 
The Motion was a request for granting of losses that occurred because of detrimental reliance on the opposing side's promise to perform that eventually was Ordered by the court some time later. The hearing was notified to be canceled because after faxing the Motion to the opposing side, it was realized that the Motion needed to be filed as a separate compliant in another venue. The opposing side wouldn't agree to the hearing being canceled. At the hearing The Judge used the new Tort reform modification of 57.105 (the old frivilious action statute that is now open for a wider interpretation) to assess attorneys fees and costs on a Pro Se that earnestly made a procedural mistake. Can the resulting Order from 57.105 be used to put the Pro Se in jail if the attorneys fees are not paid as per the Order? What will protect the impecunious Pro Se aside from following the Order to pay? Ligitimate Bankruptcy? Notice of Indigency? State lines? Appeal? Anything else?
 
Last edited:
This is highly unusual, even more so to do so against someone apearing pro se. Usually there is a lot more to such stories. If this is truly unjust then appealing to the bar association is a good start, as well as to the county's judiciary review board. I don't want to suggest anything but it sounds like there is a lot more going on here than just a simple mistake that happened once.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top