TOMPKINS LAND AND HOUSING, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
TERRYCEIA VANN WHITE, APPELLEE
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.
Tompkins Land and Housing appealed a judgment in favor of White in a breach of contract case, arguing that the trial judge erred by allowing two different judges to hear testimony at separate hearings and then entering final judgment. The appellate court agreed, holding that a successor judge cannot weigh and compare testimony heard by a predecessor judge without a stipulation or retrial.
A successor judge may complete uncompleted acts of a predecessor judge but cannot weigh and compare testimony heard before another judge. When a successor judge does not hear all the evidence, the judge may only enter a verdict or judgment upon a retrial or if the parties stipulate based on the prior record. Judge Hodges therefore erred in denying the motion for mistrial or alternative relief.
[1] A successor judge may not weigh and compare testimony heard before a predecessor judge.
[2] A successor judge who did not hear all the evidence may only enter a verdict or judgment upon a retrial or if the parties stipulate based on the record of prior proceedin…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A successor judge may complete acts left uncompleted by a predecessor but may not weigh and compare testimony heard before the other judge.”
Establishes the core principle limiting successor judges' authority in bench trials with divided testimony hearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhite sued Tompkins Land and Housing for breach of contract. The bench trial was held over three hearing dates: Judge Knowles presided over the first …
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 Successor Judge Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
[*260] CAMPBELL, Judge.
White sued Tompkins Land and Housing for breach of contract. The case was initially set for nonjury trial before Judge Phillip Knowles. The trial was not concluded on the first date set for final hearing and was continued to a second date. Judge Knowles presided over those two hearings at which the parties presented witnesses and evidence. A third hearing was necessary, and that hearing was held before Judge John Hodges who also heard witnesses and received evidence. Tompkins Land and Housing objected to the fact that both judges had heard testimony and filed a motion for mistrial or alternative relief. Judge Hodges denied the motion and entered a final judgment in favor of White. We agree with Tompkins that Judge Hodges erred in failing to grant the motion for mistrial or alternative relief.
A successor judge may complete acts left uncompleted by a predecessor but may not weigh and compare testimony heard before the other judge. A successor judge that does not hear all the evidence may only enter a verdict or judgment upon a retrial or if the parties so stipulate on the basis of the record of the prior proceedings. Bradford v. Foundation & Marine Construction Co., 182 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). There was no stipulation here. In order for Judge Hodges to enter the final judgment, he was required to review testimony which he did not have an opportunity to see and hear. Under the circumstances, he should have granted the motion for mistrial or alternative relief. See also Kirkham v. Kirkham, 385 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Paragon Grp., Inc. v. Hoeksema, 475 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…findings of fact or conclusions of law on the record, we agree. A successor judge may complete acts left unfinished by a predecessor, but [*246] may not weigh the testimony heard before the predecessor judge. Tompkins Land & Housing, Inc. v. White, 431 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). A successor judge who does not hear all the evidence may only enter a judgment on retrial or, where the parties stipulate, on the basis of the record of the prior proceedings. Id. See also Kirkham v. Kirkham, 385 So. 2d 733 (Fla.…
-
Reaves v. Reaves, 546 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…hearing. We agree. A successor judge who does not hear all the evidence may only enter a verdict or judgment upon a retrial or if the parties so stipulate on the basis of the record of the prior proceedings. Tompkins Land and Housing, Inc. v. White, 431 So. 2d 259, 260 (Fla.2d DCA 1983). Accord, Anders v. Anders, 376 So. 2d 439 (Fla.lst DCA 1979). In view of our disposition, we do not reach the wife’s contention that the trial court erred in denying her petition on the merits. Accordingly, we vacate the tri…
-
Alvord v. Christal Alvord, 572 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…at the evidentiary hearing. We agree. A successor judge may complete any acts left uncompleted by his predecessor, if the successor is not required to weigh and compare testimony heard before the other judge. Tompkins Land & Housing, Inc. v. White, 431 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Bradford v. Foundation & Marine Constr. Co., 182 So. 2d 447, 449 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 188 So. 2d 821 (Fla.1966). “A successor judge who does not hear all the evidence may only enter a verdict or judgment upon a retrial or…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bradford v. Found. & Marine Constr. Co., Inc., 182 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Kirkham v. Kirkham, 385 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)