Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2015

Testa v. Testa

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided August 27, 2015 · Conner, Klingensmith, Levine

171 So. 3d 244; 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 12827; 2015 WL 5042130 (Southern Reporter, Third Series)

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Preudhomme v. Bailey (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)
Gary Steinberg v. Eva Cudak (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2026)
Frank A. Testa v. Department of Revenue o/b/o Laura Testa (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The former husband seeks certiorari review of a trial court order that barred him from further pro se filing in this 2008 post-dissolution family law case. We grant-the petition and quash the order because the trial court did not issue an order to show cause and did not provide notice and an *245opportunity to respond before imposing the sanction. Bolton v. SE Prop. Holdings, LLC, 127 So.3d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Delgado v. Hearn, 805 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); see also State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1999).

On remand, the trial court shall issue an order to show cause and afford the former husband a reasonable time to respond before determining whether the sanction is appropriate.

Petition granted and order quashed.

LEVINE, CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.