ANNAMARIE RIETHMILLER, PETITIONER,
v.
WILLIAM RIETHMILLER, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court imposed sanctions on a pro se litigant, Annamarie Riethmiller, who had filed numerous meritless pleadings related to her dissolution of marriage case. The Court barred her from filing future pro se pleadings in the Supreme Court regarding her divorce proceedings unless represented by a member of The Florida Bar.
The Court concluded that Riethmiller's response to the show cause order failed to demonstrate why she should not be sanctioned. The Court barred the Clerk from accepting any future pleadings, petitions, motions, or other filings submitted by Riethmiller pertaining to her divorce case unless signed by a member of The Florida Bar in good standing.
[1] A court may sanction a litigant who demonstrates a pattern of filing meritless pro se requests for relief to protect judicial resources and the rights of other litigants.
[2] A court may order the clerk to reject future pro se filings from a litigant who has abused the court's resources, unless the filings are signed by a licensed attorney.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Riethmiller has compiled a history of pro se filings in this Court that were devoid of merit or inappropriate for review. Her filings, in part, also reveal a pattern of instituting proceedings and then failing to properly pursue them.”
Establishes the Court's findings justifying the imposition of sanctions based on Riethmiller's pattern of meritless and improperly pursued filings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSince 2010, Riethmiller has initiated numerous proceedings in the Florida Supreme Court pertaining to her divorce proceedings in the Circuit Court of …
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 Sanctions For Frivolous Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court on the petition of Annamarie Riethmiller for a writ of mandamus.1 We previously denied the petition and retained jurisdiction to pursue sanctions against Riethmiller. Due to her numerous meritless and inappropriate filings in this Court pertaining to her dissolution of marriage proceedings in the Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, in and for Manatee County,2 Riethmil-ler was directed to show cause why she should not be barred from filing in this Court any future pro se pleadings, motions, or other requests for relief.3 Rieth-*927miller has filed a response to the order to show cause.
After considering Riethmiller’s response, we conclude that it fails to show cause why she should not be sanctioned. Riethmiller has compiled a history of pro se filings in this Court that were devoid of merit or inappropriate for review. Her filings, in part, also reveal a pattern of instituting proceedings and then failing to properly pursue them.
Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Annamarie Riethmiller pertaining to her dissolution of marriage proceedings in the Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, in and for Manatee County (case number 2009-DR-10430), unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Counsel may file on Riethmiller’s behalf if counsel determines that the proceeding may have merit and can be brought in good faith.4
It is so ordered.
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris v. Martye S. Gattie, 263 So. 3d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…olved in civil proceedings as well as criminal ones. See, e.g., Lomax v. Taylor, 149 So. 3d 1135, 1136 n.2 (Fla. 2014) (citing Spencer as providing the required procedure before sanctioning a litigant in a civil case); Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 133 So. 3d 926, 926 n.3 (Fla. 2013) (same); Delgado v. Hearn, 805 So. 2d 1017, 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (applying the Spencer standard to civil litigants). Here, neither the trial court's order nor its docket shows that the court provided Harris with either no…
-
Rivas v. The Bank OF NEW York Mellon, 239 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2018)…pro se filings). In recent years, we have imposed comparable sanctions on other litigants whose pro se filing practices have exhibited their disregard for abusing the scarce judicial resources of this Court. See, e.g. , Riethmiller v. Riethmiller , 133 So. 3d 926 (Fla. 2013) ; McCutcheon v. State , 117 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 2013) ; James v. Tucker , 75 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 2011) ; Johnson v. Rundle , 59 So. 3d 1080 (Fla. 2011) ; Steele v. State , 14 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 2009) ; Pettway v. McNeil , 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 200…
-
Lomax v. Taylor, 149 So. 3d 1135 (Fla. 2014)…ss their pleadings, motions, or other requests for relief were filed under the signature of a member of The Florida Bar in good standing. See, e.g., Johnson v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., 136 So. 3d 507 (Fla.2014); Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 133 So. 3d 926 (Fla.2013); Steele v. State, 14 So. 3d 221 (Fla.2009); Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla.2008). Petitioner has failed to show cause why she should not be so sanctioned. Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any fut…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Pettway v. McNEIL, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2008)
- Steele v. State, 14 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 2009)
- Johnson v. Rundle, 59 So. 3d 1080 (Fla. 2011)
- James v. Tucker, 75 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 2011)
- McCUTCHEON v. State, 117 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 2013)