Batista v. Batista, 89-1785
| Decision Date | 05 December 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-1785,89-1785 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2795 Jesus L. BATISTA, Appellant, v. Sandra BATISTA, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Earl H. Galitz, Miami, for appellant.
Gaston R. Alvarez, Miami, and Jesus O. Cervantes, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and GERSTEN, JJ.
Appellant, former husband Jesus Batista, appeals a non-final order denying a motion, under rule 1.540(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, to vacate a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We reverse and remand.
Appellee, former wife Sandra Batista, filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. Appellant failed to file any paper for over one year, and a default was entered against him.
Following the default, the trial court held a hearing, at which appellant failed to appear, and granted a final judgment of dissolution of the marriage between appellant and appellee, based solely upon the appellee's petition. Nearly six months later, appellant moved pursuant to rule 1.540(b) to vacate the final judgment of dissolution.
In his motion, appellant sought to reduce the amount of child support awarded. In support of this reduction, appellant asserted excusable neglect, surprise, and fraud in regard to verbal agreements appellant had made with appellee to be jointly represented by the same attorney and for the amount of child support. The appellee filed a motion denying all the allegations of appellant's motion to vacate.
At some point between the entry of final judgment and the filing of the motion to vacate, the original trial judge was appointed to another court. A hearing on the motion was held before a successor judge, who denied the motion on the grounds that a successor judge could not vacate another judge's final judgment and that modification was the propery remedy. This appeal ensued.
The appellant asserts on appeal that the trial court erred in denying the motion because a successor judge must hear a rule 1.540(b) motion on its merits. Appellee contends that appellant's motion is really a motion for rehearing under rule 1.530 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, clothed in the language of a 1.540 motion, which permits filing within one year from the entry of a final judgment.
The trial court proceeded on the mistaken assumption that a successor judge can never reconsider a ruling made by his or her predecessor. That is not so. See generally Tingle v. Dade County Board of County Commissioners, 245 So.2d 76, 77-78 (Fla.1971); Groover v. Walker, 88 So.2d 312, 313-15 (Fla.1956). Thus, for example,
where a petition for rehearing ... presents a point which the Chancellor overlooked or failed to consider, rendering a final decree inequitable or erroneous, then the successor Chancellor, exercising the full jurisdiction of the Court, may with propriety consider such petition and take such proper action upon it as could his predecessor who entered the decree. In such instances the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Straley v. Frank
... ... See Batista ... Page 347 ... v. Batista, 553 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). This procedure does not ... ...
-
Straley v. Frank
...the kind of issues which may be heard and determined by a successor trial judge in supplemental proceedings. See Batista v. Batista, 553 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA1989). This procedure does not require the successor judge to weigh evidence not presented to him. In reviewing on appeal an award ......
-
O'Neal v. Darling
...evidence to show the parties’ oral presentations were unduly hampered, restricted, or curtailed in any manner); Batista v. Batista, 553 So. 2d 1281, 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (holding that "where the petition for rehearing merely reargues the case on points and facts found and considered in t......
-
Dept. of Children and Families v. J.J.E.
...245 So.2d 76, 77-78 (Fla.1971); Powers v. ITT Fin. Servs. Corp., 662 So.2d 1343, 1345 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Batista v. Batista, 553 So.2d 1281, 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). When the department seeks to terminate parental rights, its obligation to diligently search for the parents to give them pr......