Senior Law Clerk
In Gonzalez v. LaGrasse, Case No. 6D2026-2058 (Fla. 6th DCA Aug. 26, 2026), the Sixth District dismissed an emergency petition for writ of certiorari, or alternatively for review of a nonfinal order. The petitioner, a non-lawyer, had signed the petition both individually and as trustee of his trust. The ruling is short and procedural, but it carries three lessons for trial and appellate lawyers. A trustee who is not a lawyer cannot represent the trust in court. Labeling a filing an “emergency” does not excuse a defect in who signed it. And the same defect that sinks an appellate filing can already be sitting in the lower tribunal’s order.
What happened: Alexander Elliott Gonzalez, appearing pro se, filed an emergency petition docketed August 5, 2026. He signed it individually and as trustee of the Alexander Elliott Gonzalez Trust. The respondents were Joseph D. LaGrasse, The LaGrasse LLC, and Value Store It Self Storage, LLC. The petition sought review of a nonfinal order denying relief concerning property that Gonzalez asserts the trust owns. The respondents made no appearance.
According to the petition, the lower tribunal had also denied relief because Gonzalez was representing the trust without a lawyer, and it did so without prejudice. The Sixth District dismissed the petition. It held that Gonzalez, who is not an attorney, was not authorized to represent the trust pro se.
Why it matters (for trial and appellate lawyers):
The opinion is brief, but it is a useful checkpoint on who may sign what.
The first lesson is that a trust cannot appear for itself, and its trustee cannot do it for the trust. The court reasoned that a natural person may represent himself, but a trust is an artificial entity that acts only through agents. In court, it can act only through licensed attorneys. A non-lawyer trustee who signs for the trust is therefore engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The court treated the trust the same way Florida courts treat a corporation.
This matters most for fiduciaries who are also litigants. A trustee suing or defending in a trustee capacity is not representing only himself. The court’s reasoning rests on the idea that a trustee acts for the interests of others. The ability to appear pro se in one’s own right does not carry over to that role.
The second lesson is that an “emergency” label does not cure a threshold defect. The petition was styled as an emergency and invoked certiorari with an alternative request for nonfinal review. The Sixth District still resolved the case on who signed it, without reaching the merits. A party who files quickly without counsel can end up with a dismissal and no review. The practical effect is lost time on a matter the filer considered urgent.
The third lesson is that the defect may already exist in the order below. The petition itself reported that the lower tribunal had denied relief on the same ground, and without prejudice. That should have been a signal to retain counsel for the trust and return to the trial court. The court said as much in a footnote. Nothing in the order prevents Gonzalez from engaging licensed Florida counsel to seek relief for the trust in the lower tribunal.
The footnote also flagged two further deficiencies. The petition did not identify the lower tribunal judge, and it was not accompanied by the appendix required by the appellate rules. The court did not rest its decision on those points, but they are a reminder that emergency petitions are held to the same form requirements as any other.
Key points:
- A non-lawyer trustee cannot represent a trust pro se in Florida court.
- A trust, like a corporation, appears only through licensed counsel.
- Signing for the trust as a non-lawyer is treated as the unauthorized practice of law.
- The Sixth District dismissed the petition on that threshold ground and did not reach the merits.
- The lower tribunal had reportedly denied relief on the same basis, without prejudice, so the path back runs through licensed counsel in the trial court.
- A petition that omits the lower tribunal judge or the required appendix has additional deficiencies, even if the court does not rely on them.
Takeaway: For litigators who represent or advise trustees, Gonzalez v. LaGrasse is an easy intake rule to apply. Before anything is filed for a trust, confirm that a licensed Florida lawyer is signing for the trust. If a client-trustee has already filed pro se, expect dismissal and plan to cure in the trial court rather than seek emergency relief. Without prejudice means the trust can still be heard, but only through counsel. Opposing counsel should also check the signature block. A respondent facing a pro se trustee’s filing may be able to raise the defect early.
* * * * * * * * * *
THIS BLOG IS INTENDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE. THE READER SHOULD CONSULT WITH KNOWLEDGEABLE LEGAL COUNSEL TO DETERMINE HOW APPLICABLE LAWS APPLY TO SPECIFIC FACTS AND SITUATIONS. BLOG POSTS ARE BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION AT THE TIME THEY ARE WRITTEN. SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE LAWS OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE PUBLICATION, PLEASE CALL US TO DISCUSS ANY ACTION YOU MAY BE CONSIDERING AS A RESULT OF READING THIS BLOG.