Torrey v. Rivera, Threatte

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 3, 2026
Docket1D2025-1644
StatusPublished

This text of Torrey v. Rivera, Threatte (Torrey v. Rivera, Threatte) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Torrey v. Rivera, Threatte, (Fla. Ct. App. 2026).

Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

No. 1D2025-1644 _____________________________

MICHAEL A. TORREY,

Appellant,

v.

WILFREDO RIVERA, KATTIE L. THREATTE, All Residents, and CHARLIE BANK,

Appellees. _____________________________

On appeal from the County Court for Escambia County. Barry E. Dickson, Jr., Judge.

June 3, 2026

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Michael A. Torrey, who is incarcerated, appeals from the dismissal of the civil action he filed against Appellees Kattie L. Threatte and Charlie Bank to have them removed from what he claimed was his real property and for the payment of rent due. Appellant argues, and we agree, that the trial court reversibly erred in denying his motion to either direct that he be transported to the courthouse for the scheduled hearing on the matter or be able to appear electronically. See Burdoo v. Plympton, 219 So. 3d 170, 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (“A prisoner involved in civil litigation has the right to be heard; however, ‘the prisoner must bring to the court’s attention his desire to appear personally or telephonically at hearing or trial.’ . . . If a prisoner requests a telephonic hearing or asserts his desire to be heard on the matter, ‘the right is clear.’”) (quoting Johnson v. Johnson, 992 So. 2d 399, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)); see also Weston v. Weston, 307 So. 3d 975, 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (same); Havenner v. Hutchinson, 162 So. 3d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (same); Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.530(b) (“[A] court official may authorize the use of communication technology for the presentation of testimony or for other participation in a proceeding upon the written motion of a party . . . .”).

Accordingly, the dismissal order is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.

LEWIS, ROWE, and RAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

Michael A. Torrey, pro se, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellees.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jerry W. Havenner v. Debora Hutchinson
162 So. 3d 1113 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Gregory S. Burdoo v. Kristen T. Plympton
219 So. 3d 170 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Johnson v. Johnson
992 So. 2d 399 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Torrey v. Rivera, Threatte, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torrey-v-rivera-threatte-fladistctapp-2026.