2D04-2610 / Graham v. Graham

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Second District Court of Appeal » 2005 » 2D04-2610 / Graham v. Graham

State: Florida

Court: Florida Southern District Court

Docket No: 2D04-2610

Case Date: 03/11/2005

Plaintiff: 2D04-2610 / Graham

Defendant: Graham

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
ROGER GRAHAM,                                                                          )
)
Appellant,                                                                             )
)
v.                                                                                     )   Case No. 2D04-2610
)
JEANNETTE GRAHAM,                                                                      )
)
Appellee.                                                                              )
)
Opinion filed March 11, 2005.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for
Sarasota County; Deno G. Economou,
Judge.
Susan J. Silverman, Sarasota, for
Appellant.
Kathi B. Halvorsen, Sarasota, for
Appellee.
ALTENBERND, Chief Judge.
Roger Graham appeals an order striking the pleadings he had filed in a
postjudgment dissolution of marriage proceeding.   The order also prohibits him from
filing further pro se pleadings.   We affirm.

The trial court entered the order on appeal after a hearing at which no
court reporter was present.   The order includes specific findings of fact regarding Mr.
Graham's abuse of the judicial process.   The record before this court contains some
pleadings that support the trial court's determination that Mr. Graham did not comply
with court orders and abused the judicial process.   It appears that the trial court con-
sidered additional evidence of this abuse at the hearing on Ms. Graham's request for
sanctions.   Without a transcript of this hearing, the record is inadequate to demonstrate
reversible error concerning the imposition of these sanctions.   See Applegate v. Barnett
Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979).
Mr. Graham argues that the trial court's order should be reversed, even in
the absence of a transcript of the hearing, because the postjudgment proceedings
involve issues affecting the parties' minor children.   He argues that the sanctions im-
posed essentially decide matters regarding the children's best interests by default.   We
disagree.   The order on appeal does not strike Mr. Graham's pleadings with prejudice.
The trial court's order merely requires Mr. Graham to refile his pleadings through
licensed counsel who will comply with court orders and not abuse the judicial process.
Certainly, the remedy employed by the trial court in this case should be
used sparingly and only in extreme circumstances after the party has been afforded a
full measure of due process to explain the questioned conduct and an opportunity to
discontinue any misconduct.   It is well established, however, that a pro se litigant can
lose the right of self-representation even in matters as serious as postjudgment criminal
proceedings.   See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999).   Our record does not
-2-

permit us to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing these sanc-
tions in this postjudgment dissolution proceeding.
Affirmed.
NORTHCUTT and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
-3-

Download 2D04-2610.pdf