LAUREN MOORE DELEHANT, APPELLANT,
v.
DOROTHEA MARGARET DELEHANT, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Trial De Novo cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is the second time this court has been asked to review an award of the marital house of the parties to the wife as lump sum alimony.1 Again, we find facial error in the trial court’s order of July 28, 1980, finalized by the subsequent final judgment, both of which were entered by the successor trial judge.
In order to comply with our earlier opinion, the original trial judge should have completed the matter or the successor trial judge should have conducted a trial de novo on the issues except dissolution and child custody.2 Neither was done.
Accordingly, we reverse the order and final judgment and remand to the trial court for proceedings consistent herewith.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., and GREEN, OLIVER L., Associate Judge, concur. . See our earlier opinion in Delehant v. Delehant, 383 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
. See Bradford v. Foundation & Marine Constr. Co., 182 So. 2d 447 (Fla.2d DCA), cert. denied, 188 So. 2d 821 (Fla.1966); Dash v. Dash, 306 So. 2d 543 (Fla.3d DCA 1974).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dorothea Margaret Delehant v. Delehant, 442 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…evious actions filed followed by reconciliations. The instant action has been in litigation for over five years and has visited this court on two prior occasions. See Delehant v. Delehant, 383 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) and Delehant v. Delehant, 409 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The trial court labored diligently to adjust the equities and property rights of the parties. A comprehensive final judgment was entered. Both parties are aggrieved by it and have appealed. With two, relatively speaking, minor…
-
Mirth K. Brown v. Brown, 453 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…or proceedings. We agree that the trial judge’s order retaining jurisdiction must be reversed because under the circumstances, the successor judge should have conducted a trial de novo on the issue of retention of jurisdiction. Delehant v. Delehant, 409 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Dash v. Dash, 306 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); and see generally Courts and Judges, 13 Fla.Jur.2d, Section 230, page 356. We wish to stress that in this instance, the successor judge should not be faulted for his failure to c…
-
Norton Kent Euart v. Fernsell, 436 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…itioner’s motion for protective order was not the judge who signed the order on December 29, 1981, denying the motion, notwithstanding the availability of the first judge. Such practice is anomalous and must be disapproved. See Delehant v. Delehant, 409 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Bradford v. Foundation & Marine Construction Co., 182 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 188 So. 2d 821 (Fla.1966); and Dash v. Dash, 306 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of ce…
Authorities Cited
- Bradford v. Found. & Marine Constr. Co., Inc., 182 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Concord Shopping Ctr. v. Litowitz, 188 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1966)
- Edgar v. Quality Roofing Tile Co., 188 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1966)
- Delehant v. Dorothea Margaret Delehant, 383 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Dash v. Dash, 306 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)