128 So. 3d 179
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- AnnMarie Balch was named a defendant in a mortgage foreclosure; Sherman Balch was not a signatory, not a defendant, and had no standing.
- Sherman Balch filed numerous pleadings jointly with AnnMarie Balch, including an Answer and Affirmative Defenses that referenced HSBC Bank USA, N.A.
- The trial court granted a Motion to Strike and prohibited Sherman Balch from filing further papers unless signed by an attorney, after a hearing on the Motion to Strike.
- Sherman Balch violated the order by filing a Motion to Dismiss jointly with AnnMarie Balch, and the court again prohibited him from filing without an attorney.
- AnnMarie Balch appealed, seeking reversal of the non-final order prohibiting Sherman Balch from filing; the appellate court treated the notice as a Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
- The court held that pro se litigants are not entitled to special treatment and may be restrained from frivolous filings when they violate court orders; the petition was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the non-final order prohibiting filings by a non-party was appealable | Balch argues the order should be reviewed on appeal | Balch contends the order is final as to restraint on filings and subject to review | Non-final; treated as certiorari petition and denied |
| Whether Sherman Balch had standing to participate in the foreclosure action | Balch lacks standing as he is not a party to the note/mortgage | Balch claims some rights by affiliation with AnnMarie Balch and participation | Balch has no standing; cannot participate or rely on non-party filings |
| Whether the court properly restrained the pro se litigant from further filings | Restriction is necessary to prevent abuse of the system | Restriction overbroad or improper without notice | Proper authority to restrain pro se filings by non-parties |
| Whether pro se litigants receive the same procedural discipline as counsel | Pro se should be held to similar standards as counsel | Pro se status should not excuse violations of orders | Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Favreau v. Favreau, 940 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (non-final orders reviewed via certiorari; restraints may be used)
- Platel v. Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., 436 So.2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (restraining pro se filings when routine procedures are upset)
- Shotkin v. Cohen, 163 So.2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) (limits on frivolous pro se filings to protect the bar and court)
- Kohn v. City of Miami Beach, 611 So.2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (pro se parties cannot expect favored treatment; must comply with rules)
- Millen v. Milieu, 122 So.3d 496 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (pro se litigants not treated more leniently than counsel)
- Anderson v. Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty., 830 So.2d 952 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (pro se litigants bound by same rights and duties as counsel)
- Gladstone v. Smith, 729 So.2d 1002 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (frivolous filings by pro se litigants may be restrained)
- Kreager v. Glickman, 519 So.2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (restraining orders on pro se filings aligned with policy)