ELLIS FRANKLIN FORT, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, STATE OF FLORIDA, ON BEHALF OF EILEEN M. EMMERS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court's order granting substitution of counsel departed from the essential requirements of law.
The father appealed an order granting a joint motion for substitution of counsel, which effectively converted the case and substituted the mother for …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Enforcement Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ellis Franklin Fort, Jr. (the father) appeals the trial court’s order which granted the joint motion for substitution of counsel filed by Eileen Emmers (the mother) and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). Pursuant to rule 9.040(c), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, we treat this appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, grant the petition, and quash the order substituting counsel because the order departs from the essential requirements of law.
The trial court’s order granting the motion for substitution of counsel effectively converted this matter from a section 409.-25641 enforcement action into a chapter 61 enforcement action and substituted the mother as a party for HRS, which was, essentially, either dropped or voluntarily dismissed from the case. This ruling interfered with the efficient, orderly, and proper functioning of the court2 because it prevented the father from pursuing his section 57.105(1)3 motion for attorney’s fees against HRS. Accordingly, we issue the writ of certiorari, quash the order of substitution, and remand this matter to the trial court with directions to conduct a hearing on the father’s motion for assessment of attorney’s fees against HRS.4
HARRIS, C.J., and DIAMANTIS, J., and BROCK, N.D., Associate Judge, concur. . See § 409.2564, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1992).
. See Atlantic Commercial Development Corp. v. Nortek, Inc., 403 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State ex rel. Branch v. DuVal, 249 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).
. See § 57.105(1), Fla.Stat. (1991).
.The July 1, 1992, amendment to section 61.16, Florida Statutes (1991), contained in Chapter 92-138, § 6 at 1174, Laws of Florida, does not bar recovery of attorney's fees against HRS under section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (1991). See Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Coyle, 624 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Taylor v. McGregor, 616 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Dep't OF Revenue & Suzanne M. Wrobel v. Wrobel, 739 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…d in 1992 providing specifically that fees cannot be imposed against the Department of Revenue. See Ch. 92-138, § 6 at 1174, Laws of Fla.; § 61.16, Fla. Stat. (1995); see also Fort v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. on Behalf of Emmers, 626 So. 2d 302, 303 n. 4 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (recognizing amendment to section 61.16 which prohibits imposing fees upon the Department). However, the statute does state that fees may be assessed against the department pursuant to s. 57.105(1). § 61.16, Fla. Stat.…
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Lanell N. Branch v. Honorable Harvie DuVAL, 249 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Mason v. Audioasis, Inc., 403 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Coyle, 624 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Gladys Taylor & the Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. McGREGOR, 616 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)