1. Free Legal Help, Legal Forms and Lawyers. TheLaw.com has been providing free legal assistance online since 1995. Our most popular destinations for legal help are below. It only takes a minute to join our legal community!

    Dismiss Notice

Procedure Snafu: Implication of Judge's Order in Florida

Discussion in 'Other Legal Issues' started by Henry, Aug 13, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Henry

    Henry Law Topic Starter New Member

    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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: Aug 13, 2002
  2. Michael Wechsler

    Michael Wechsler Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    9,171
    Likes Received:
    622
    Trophy Points:
    113

    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.
     
  3. Henry

    Henry Law Topic Starter New Member

    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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: Aug 15, 2002
  4. Michael Wechsler

    Michael Wechsler Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    9,171
    Likes Received:
    622
    Trophy Points:
    113

    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.
     

Share This Page

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.