BROWARD COUNTY, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN AND CATHERINE MITTEN, APPELLEES
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 court held that an order granting a new trial must be entered by the judge who presided over the trial and conducted the hearing on the motion.
A new trial order was signed by a judge who did not preside over the jury trial or conduct the motion hearing. The judge who presided over the trial i…
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 Motion For New Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial which was signed by one circuit judge after a hearing on the motion therefor had been conducted by another circuit judge. The latter judge had presided over the jury trial involving the parties; and following the hearing on the post-trial mo tion, apparently informed both counsel that he intended to order a new trial. Prior to entering such order he was transferred to a different division of the court but remains available as an active circuit judge.1
Under the circumstances it is necessary to reverse and remand with direction that the judge who presided over the trial and conducted the hearing enter such order as he considers proper on the motion for new trial. See Kirkham v. Kirkham, 385 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). If necessary, a de novo hearing may be conducted.
BERANEK, GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur. . Accordingly, we are not faced with the situation presented in Anders v. Anders, 376 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) in which the trial judge who considered the motion for rehearing announced that he was going to grant the motion but left office without having reduced his decision to writing. Our sister court ordered the successor judge to conduct a de novo hearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of N.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 834 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…er these circumstances, we are compelled to reverse. See Umscheid v. Umscheid, 724 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Carr v. Byers, 578 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Beattie v. Beattie, 586 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Broward County v. Mitten, 421 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Silvern v. Silvern, 252 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). The record does not reveal why a successor judge signed the dependency order being challenged in this appeal, although [*190] we suspect it was because the predecessor jud…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. Thaddeus A. Anders, 376 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Kirkham v. Kirkham, 385 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)