Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Family Law Procedure

Pro se litigants in Florida family law cases are parties who are not represented by a lawyer. They are representing themselves, and even if they are not familiar with rules of procedure or the law, they are usually held to the same standard as a lawyer in conducting themselves in the case. This is why it may not be ideal to proceed pro se. The case Duhamel v. Duhamel, 2D18-4020 (Fla. 2d DCA September 5, 2020) is an example of how self-representation can cause complications.

The parties were in a long-term marriage by the time of their divorce. The former wife, although represented by various lawyers throughout her Florida dissolution of marriage proceedings, found herself proceeding pro se by the time trial began. The former wife presented her case, and when she tried to enter certain evidence, the former husband’s lawyer objected. The court then instructed the former wife that she could not enter the evidence at that time, but could have it entered through the former husband during his presentation of his side of the case. The former wife therefore rested her case without calling the former husband as a witness.

When the former wife tried to enter the aforementioned evidence during the former husband’s presentation of his case, the trial court denied her ability to do so. The former wife protested, reminding the court that it told her she would have this opportunity when she attempted to do so previously. The former wife requested multiple times for her case to be re-opened, alleging it would be unfair for the court to make a decision without hearing all of the evidence. The former husband objected, stating it would be prejudicial to him since he had traveled from out of state to be present for the hearing, he had missed work, and he would incur further attorney’s fees and costs. The trial court ultimately denied the former wife’s request to re-open her case and present the evidence, and the former wife appealed.

The appellate court started by stating the factors a court must consider in deciding whether to re-open a case: "‘[T]he trial court has discretion to grant a motion to reopen a case for presentation of additional evidence after the parties have rested . . . .’ Robinson v. Weiland, 936 So. 2d 777, 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). ‘Factors the trial court should consider in determining whether to reopen the case to allow presentation of additional evidence include whether the opposing party will be unfairly prejudiced and whether it will serve the best interests of justice.’ Id. (citations omitted). A trial court should also consider ‘(1) the timeliness of the request, (2) the character of the evidence sought to be introduced, (3) the effect of allowing the evidence to be admitted, and (4) the reasonableness of the excuse justifying the request to reopen.’ Lovelass v. Hutchinson, 250 So. 3d 701, 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (quoting Grider–Garcia v. State Farm Mut. Auto., 73 So. 3d 847, 849 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)). In considering the necessary factors, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the former wife's request to reopen her case so that she could call the former husband as a witness and introduce evidence through him. While the evidence sought to be admitted may have been unfavorable to the former husband, there would have been no unfair prejudice to him.”

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s ruling, holding “When the former wife was presenting her case-in-chief, the trial court directed her to a course of action by telling her that she could question the former husband. But the trial court did not sufficiently explain to the former wife that she would need to do so through direct examination of the former husband during her case-in-chief. Thus, the excuse justifying the former wife's request to reopen her case was reasonable. And her request was timely; as soon as she realized the problem, she requested to reopen her case. The evidentiary portion of the final hearing was not close to being concluded, and no final judgment had yet been entered.” Schedule a consultation with a Miami divorce lawyer to understand how the law may apply to your case.