From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Klaver v. Mander

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Feb 22, 1985
468 So. 2d 261 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Summary

In Klaver v. Mander, 468 So.2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), the court held that plaintiff's due process rights were not violated, despite the prisoner's inability to be present at hearing, where the court recognized the prisoner's situation, wrote him specifically to give him the opportunity to file a brief in opposition and to suggest he find counsel, and gave him the opportunity for written response following the hearing.

Summary of this case from Leone v. Florida Power Corp.

Opinion

No. 84-1400.

February 22, 1985.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Pasco County, Ray E. Ulmer, Jr., J.

James E. Klaver, pro se.

Peyton B. Hyslop of Greenfelder Mander, P.A., Dade City, for appellee.


We affirm the circuit court's transfer to the county court of this civil action by an incarcerated plaintiff.

Plaintiff contends that he was entitled to be present at the hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss, citing Baker v. Baker, 403 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) and McKay v. Jenkins, 405 So.2d 287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). We disagree. Although Baker and McKay express concern over the opportunity of an incarcerated defendant to appear in person or through counsel, neither involves a situation, as here, where the incarcerated person is plaintiff. In fact, McKay specifically distinguishes the situation in which the person is plaintiff in a civil suit. 405 So.2d at 289.

Plaintiff's due process rights were not violated. The trial court recognized plaintiff's situation, wrote the plaintiff, and specifically gave him the opportunity to file a brief in opposition to the motion. The trial court also suggested that if plaintiff desired representation, he should obtain an attorney. After the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the trial court again wrote to plaintiff and gave him time to respond. Plaintiff did respond by filing a brief. Six weeks later the trial court transferred the case to the county court, finding that the amount in controversy was not the amount requisite for circuit court jurisdiction.

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.


Summaries of

Klaver v. Mander

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Feb 22, 1985
468 So. 2d 261 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

In Klaver v. Mander, 468 So.2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), the court held that plaintiff's due process rights were not violated, despite the prisoner's inability to be present at hearing, where the court recognized the prisoner's situation, wrote him specifically to give him the opportunity to file a brief in opposition and to suggest he find counsel, and gave him the opportunity for written response following the hearing.

Summary of this case from Leone v. Florida Power Corp.
Case details for

Klaver v. Mander

Case Details

Full title:JAMES E. KLAVER, APPELLANT, v. ROSEBURY ALBERT MANDER, III, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Feb 22, 1985

Citations

468 So. 2d 261 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Citing Cases

Leone v. Florida Power Corp.

[C]osts and inconvenience of transporting a prisoner from his place of incarceration to the courtroom, any…

In re Forfeiture of $2,311.45

We hold that, under these circumstances, the entry of an order of default in favor of the plaintiff/state is…