VERNER A. TEEFT, APPELLANT,
v.
LUNA CHEESE CORPORATION OF FLORIDA, 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.
Verner Teeft appeals the denial of his motion for new trial in a case involving alleged odometer disclosure violations. The trial judge secretly met with a witness ex parte to obtain documents supporting the case against Teeft without the knowledge or consent of the parties. The court reversed, holding that such ex parte communications with witnesses violate judicial conduct standards and due process, requiring a new trial.
The court held that a trial judge's initiation of secret ex parte communications with a witness for the purpose of obtaining evidence denies parties due process and a fair and impartial hearing. Such conduct violates Canon 3(A)(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and requires reversal and a new trial de novo.
[1] A trial judge's ex parte communication with a witness concerning a pending proceeding violates the Code of Judicial Conduct and fundamental requirements of due process.
[2] A secret meeting between a trial judge and a witness, initiated by the judge to gather evidence, denies parties due process and a fair hearing.
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“a trial judge who initiates a secret meeting with a witness for the purpose of obtaining evidence aiding in the determination of the case before him denies the parties due process and a fair and impartial hearing in that case”
Establishes the core holding that ex parte judge-witness communications constitute due process violations warranting reversal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLuna Cheese Corporation sued Teeft and two others for violation of federal odometer disclosure requirements related to a truck sale. During trial rece…
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 Odometer Disclosure Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
Verner A. Teeft appeals the denial of his motion for new trial. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
Luna Cheese Corporation of Florida (Luna) alleged in its complaint against Teeft and two other defendants a violation of the odometer disclosure requirements of Title XV, United States Code, section 1988, when he participated in a sale of a truck to Luna. The court recessed following the presentation of each party’s ease in this non-jury trial. During the recess and without the knowledge, consent, or presence of any of the parties or their attorneys, the trial judge requested that a witness who had testified earlier return for a meeting in chambers. During the meeting, the judge copied several documents from the witness’ file that might be evidence of Teeft’s participation in the sale.
After announcement of the court’s verdict and entry of judgment against Teeft alone for $15,683.35, the trial court ordered that the documents he had received during the secret meeting be placed into a sealed envelope. The envelope was marked in a manner so that it could not be opened, except by the state attorney, without the judge’s permission.
Later, Teeft learned about the meeting and the sealed documents and moved for a new trial. During the hearing on the motion, which was held before a different judge, Teeft elicited the following testimony from the witness who met with the trial judge:
Q Okay. Now, explain again, if you would, why was — why did Judge Perry say he was looking for these documents?
A He asked me if I had anything that would tie Mr. Teeft to this particular — let me think how he said that — he asked me if I had anything that would tie Mr. Teeft to this particular case concerning the sale of the vehicle and his association with the corporation or any tie-in to the corporation to sell that unit for them.
The judge who presided over the hearing denied the motion for a new trial. In the order of denial, the judge, citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979), indicated that the conduct of a trial is within the discretion of the presiding judge and that this judge could not substitute its conclusions for those of the trial judge.
Applegate stands for the proposition that the absence of a record on appeal precludes a reviewing court from properly resolving underlying factual issues that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. Ap-plegate is not applicable in this instance since the question raised by Teeft does not involve an underlying issue of fact, that is, a fact proving or disproving an allegation of Luna’s complaint. The motion for new trial concerned the conduct of the trial judge while not in the arena of litigation. It is not surprising that no record exists of the meeting between the witness and the trial court since none of the attorneys or parties who would secure a court reporter were apprised of the meeting. The proceedings on the motion for new trial were recorded, however, and are before this court.
The Florida Supreme Court considered Canon 3(A)(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct in In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge: Clayton, 504 So. 2d 394 (Fla.1987). The Canon states that a judge should neither initiate nor consider ex parte communications concerning a pending or impending proceeding. The canon further states, “This canon implements a fundamental requirement for all judicial proceedings under our form of government.” A secret meeting between a witness who has finished testifying and the trial judge before whom the witness has appeared is fundamentally unfair to the parties to the action.
While the ex parte interrogation was most likely motivated by an overwhelming desire to arrive at a correct decision in the matter, a trial judge who initiates a secret meeting with a witness for the purpose of obtaining evidence aiding in the determination of the case before him denies the parties due process and a fair and impartial hearing in that case. See Safie v. Safie, 414 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
On remand, we direct that the underlying case be heard de novo.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
W. SHARP and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pierce v. Damaris Tello, 868 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…395 (Fla.1987). We conclude that it was error for the trial judge to base her order suspending Pierce’s contact with the child on an ex-parte communication and that this resulted in a violation of due process. See Teeft v. Luna Cheese Corp. of Fla., 577 So. 2d 1004, 1005 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Safie v. Safie, 414 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Consequently, we reverse the December 4, 2002 order and all subsequent orders appealed and remand for further proceedings before a substitute judge on a de novo basis. A…
-
A. T. v. In re Name Change of A. T. (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)…ert, 654 So. 2d 226, 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)). The trial court's consultation with an unidentified federal law enforcement employee "was most likely motivated by a[] . . . desire to arrive at a correct decision." Teeft v. Luna Cheese Corp. of Fla., 577 So. 2d 1004, 1005 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Unfortunately, the trial court did not disclose the witness's identity to A.T., nor did it advise A.T. that the garnered information would be considered against him. Our record does not suggest that the trial court provid…
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge: Wiley G. Clayton, 504 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1987)
- Embinder v. Campbell, 414 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)