MONARCH CRUISE LINE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
LEISURE TIME TOURS, INC., AND LEISURE TIME TRAVEL, INC., 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.
Monarch Cruise Line appeals a trial court's order granting a rehearing to Leisure Time Tours and Leisure Time Travel following a non-jury trial. The court granted the rehearing after the parties conducted a bifurcated trial as stipulated, but the trial court then announced it would enter final judgment on the evidence presented, prompting the appellees to seek a new trial claiming they were misled and unprepared. The appellate court affirmed the rehearing order, finding no abuse of discretion.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the rehearing. When reviewing discretionary trial court actions, an appellate court applies a reasonableness test; if reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action, it is not unreasonable and does not constitute an abuse of discretion. The record did not establish abuse of discretion in granting the rehearing on the grounds stated.
[1] A trial court may grant a rehearing when counsel for a party may have been misled into a premature trial based upon a pre-trial stipulation.
[2] Justice may require a full and complete trial of all issues at one time, rather than in a bifurcated manner, even if a bifurcated trial was previously stipulated to.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In reviewing this type of discretionary act of the trial judge, the appellate court should apply the reasonableness test to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion.”
Establishes the standard of review for discretionary trial court actions—the reasonableness test requiring a clear showing of abuse before reversal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties stipulated to and the court approved a bifurcated trial. Both parties presented evidence expecting a bifurcated hearing. However, after he…
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 Bifurcated Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by Monarch Cruise Lines, Inc. from an order granting a rehearing to the plaintiffs/appellees, Leisure
Time Tours, Inc. and Leisure Time Travel, Inc., following a non-jury trial.1
The grounds stated in the order under appeal were as follows:
“(a) It is apparent to the Court that counsel for the plaintiffs may have been misled into a premature trial based upon the pre-trial stipulation entered into between the parties.
(b) That justice requires that there be a full and complete trial of all of the issues at one time, and not in a bifurcated manner as was done heretofore.”
The parties went to trial expecting that the hearing would be bifurcated, as had been stipulated to and approved by the court. However, after hearing the evidence presented by both parties the court announced that it would enter a final judgment on the basis of the evidence presented.
The appellees contend that they were misled by the court, resulting in their failure to be fully prepared for the hearing in that a material witness was not then available to testify.
Appellant’s point on appeal is that the trial court erred in granting a rehearing without any proof of the alleged new evidence or showing as to why it was not presented at the hearing. We find appellant’s contention to be without merit, and affirm.
In reviewing this type of discretionary act of the trial judge, the appellate court should apply the reasonableness test to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion. Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So. 2d 1341 (Fla.1981); Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So. 2d 145 (Fla.1980). The ruling should stand, unless it appears that there was a clear showing that the trial court abused its dis cretion. Castlewood International Corp. v. LaFleur, 322 So. 2d 520 (Fla.1975); Cloud v. Fallís, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1959).
The record in this case does not establish that the trial court abused its discretion in granting appellees’ motion for a rehearing on the grounds set forth in the order. Accordingly, the order appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. We have jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 9.110(a)(3), Fla.R.App.P., since the order in effect grants a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fredrick Thomas v. Janell Thomas, 589 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…tandard of review for orders denying motions to strike and for rehearing is abuse of discretion. Cem-A-Care of Fla., Inc. v. Automated Planning Sys., 442 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Monarch Cruise Line, Inc. v. Lei [*947] sure Time Tours, Inc., 456 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (b)(1) A party desiring to take the deposition of any person upon oral examination shall give reasonable notice in writing to every other party to t…
-
Campagna v. Cope, 971 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…ue for which the trial court often has discretion. See Trammell v. Ward, 667 So. 2d 223, 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (concluding the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant rehearing); Monarch Cruise Line, Inc. v. Leisure Time Tours, Inc., 456 So. 2d 1278, 1280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (classifying trial court’s ruling on motion for rehearing as a “discretionary act of the trial judge” not to be disturbed without “a clear showing that the trial court abused its discretion”). In this case, an issue that is…
-
Prime Prop. & Cas. Ins. Inc. v. Allied Trucking of Fla., Inc., 338 So. 3d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…presented for the first time on a motion for rehearing of a summary judgment as being too late.”) (quoting Knowles v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 994 So. 2d 1218, 1219-20 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)); Monarch Cruise Line, Inc. v. Leisure Time Tours, Inc., 456 So. 2d 1278, 1279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (classifying trial court's ruling on motion for rehearing as a “discretionary act of the trial judge” which is not to be disturbed without “a clear showing that the trial court abused its discretion.”) See also Chris Tho…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Baptist Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Bell, 384 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1980)
- Castlewood Int'l Corp. v. LaFLEUR, 322 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1975)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 1981)