GLOBE AERO LTD., INC., APPELLANT,
v.
AIR & GENERAL FINANCE LTD., PRINCIPAL, AND FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, SURETY, 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.
A successor judge cannot reverse a predecessor's final default judgment and attachment orders on the merits; the reversal order is reversed and original judgments are reinstated.
A successor judge cannot review and reverse on the merits the final orders of a predecessor judge in the same action.
[1] A successor judge is prohibited from reviewing and reversing on the merits the final orders and decrees of a predecessor judge in the same action.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“cannot review and reverse on the merits and on the same facts [the] final orders and decrees of his predecessor”
Groover v. Walker, establishing the rule that successor judges lack authority to reverse predecessor's final judgments
Globe Aero obtained a default judgment against Aviation West and a judgment against the surety Fidelity & Deposit following posting of an attachment f…
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 Forthcoming Bond cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The original trial judge in this action entered a final default judgment against Aviation West, Air & General Finance Ltd.’s lessee, and a final judgment against Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, Air & General Finance Ltd.’s surety. The trial judge’s action properly conformed to the dictates of section 76.31, Florida Statutes (1987), which requires that simultaneous judgments be entered against the defendant and surety in an attachment action where the defendant defaults following the posting of an attachment forthcoming bond and retaking of property. It was error, therefore, for another trial judge to enter an order granting Air & General’s subsequent motions to intervene, to discharge principal and surety, and to discharge the attachment. Entry of the order effectively set aside the original final judgments. It has long been the rule that a successor judge “cannot review and reverse on the merits and on the same facts the final orders and decrees of his predecessor.” Groover v. Walker, 88 So. 2d 312 (Fla.1956). See also Boeing Co. v. Merchant, 397 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (when final order has been rendered, second judge may not redecide same cause), rev. denied, 412 So. 2d 468 (Fla.1982).
The final order under review is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to reinstate the original final judgments.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stepp v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 656 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…d, from which a jury might conclude the gun was accidentally discharged. Appellants also argue that Judge Beverly could not grant summary judgment when Judge Nachman had refused to do so, based on Globe Aero Ltd, Inc. v. Air & General Finance Ltd., 537 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), in which the district court said that where the original trial judge entered a final default judgment, a successor judge could not review and reverse on the same facts the final order and decrees of his predecessor. In Whitlock v…
-
Wright v. Wright, 559 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
-
AIR & Gen. Fin. Ltd. v. Globe Aero Ltd., Inc., 554 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Globe Aero Ltd. v. Air & Gen. Finance Ltd., 537 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), review dismissed, 542 So. 2d 1332 (Fla.1989).…
Authorities Cited
- Groover v. Walker, 88 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1956)
- Babb v. State, 397 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- The Boeing Co. v. Jessee David Merchant and Flora Merchant, 397 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)