JIMMY HATCHER AND CARY A. EVERETT, APPELLANTS,
v.
ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION; J.C. BELIN, A FLORIDA CITIZEN; AND ALABAMA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, 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.
The court affirmed most issues on appeal but reversed a sanctions award because the trial judge violated the rule requiring an evidentiary hearing before a successor judge may enter a sanctions order based on evidence heard by a predecessor judge.
A successor judge may not enter a written sanctions order based solely on evidence heard by a predecessor judge without holding its own evidentiary hearing, absent an agreement between the parties.
[1] A successor judge may not enter a written order awarding sanctions based on evidence heard by a predecessor judge without conducting its own evidentiary hearing, absent a…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 not enter an order or judgment based upon evidence heard by the predecessor judge”
The court cited this rule from Carr v. Byers as controlling authority for reversing the sanctions award.
Appellants Hatcher and Everett appealed a trial court decision involving St. Joe Paper Company and others. Judge Turner had previously held a hearing …
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 Evidentiary Hearing Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
After thoroughly reviewing the voluminous record in this appeal, and carefully considering the arguments presented at oral argument, we affirm — with the exception of one — all issues raised by appellants. The issue upon which we are compelled to reverse regards Judge Cole’s award of sanctions in favor of appellee St. Joe Paper Company. As we find this issue to be controlled by our decision in Carr v. Byers, 578 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), we hold that Judge Cole was prohibited from entering a written order awarding sanctions without first holding an evidentiary hearing. It is irrelevant that Judge Turner had much earlier held a hearing on this point; he nonetheless failed to enter a written order actually awarding sanctions. As a result, we must necessarily adhere to the rule reiterated in Carr that absent an agreement between the parties, “a successor judge may not enter an order or judgment based upon evidence heard by the predecessor judge.” 578 So. 2d at 348 [footnote omitted]. Because there was no such agreement between the parties here, we reverse the award of sanctions and remand the cause to the trial court to review the matter and conduct an evidentiary hearing thereon.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Umscheid v. Umscheid, 724 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…e who hears the evidence. Any such order or judgment is invalid if based only on a letter from the judge or a pronouncement of how he intends to rule or even a judge-edited proposed, but unsigned, order or judgment. See Hatcher v. St. Joe Paper Co., 603 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); L.S. v. State, 593 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Carr v. Byers, 578 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Alvord v. Alvord, 572 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Beattie v. Beattie, 536 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Silvern v. Silve…
-
Autheria Mitchell v. Metro Dade & Risk Mgmt. for Dade Co., 797 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
-
E.J. and E.J. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 795 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…the trial court should have granted the appellants’ motion for mistrial or new trial. REVERSE and REMAND. COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . See also Umscheid v. Umscheid, 724 So. 2d 1267, 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Hatcher v. St. Joe Paper Co., 603 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); L.S. v. State, 593 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Carr v. Byers, 578 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Alvord v. Alvord, 572 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Beattie v. Beattie, 536 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Anders v. Anders…
Authorities Cited
- Carr v. Byers, 578 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)