ELLEN A. MANAS, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD L. MANAS, 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.
The appellate court vacated a final judgment and a subsequent rehearing order in a divorce case due to concerns about the trial judge's independent judicial consideration. The court found the judge's actions, including adopting opposing partisan proposals without self-originated reasoning, undermined confidence in the rulings.
No, the court found that the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the final judgment and the rehearing order lacked confidence in the trial judge's independent judicial consideration and judgment.
[1] A trial court's adoption of a party's proposed order without independent judicial consideration may warrant vacating the judgment.
[2] A court's issuance of contradictory orders based solely on arguments of counsel, without new evidence or self-originated reasoning, undermines confidence in the judicial…
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“Under these unfortunate and highly disquieting circumstances — which are exacerbated by the fact that this voluminous record contains not a single written or oral self-originated expression of the court’s own views on the merits — we lack any confidence that either ruling represents an act of independent judicial consideration and judgment.”
Establishes the appellate court's primary concern regarding the trial judge's lack of independent decision-making.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter a five-day trial, the judge initially issued a final judgment favorable to the wife, prepared by her counsel. Subsequently, without new evidence…
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 Judicial Independence cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
After a five-day trial, the trial judge executed a 65 page final judgment prepared by the wife’s counsel which was entirely favorable to her, simultaneously rejecting an equally partisan proposal submitted by the husband. Without any new evidence and based solely on argument of counsel, however, the judge then signed a completely contrary order on rehearing embodying the entirely pro-husband position he previously refused. Under these unfortunate and highly disquieting circumstances — which are exacerbated by the fact that this voluminous record contains not a single written or oral self-originated expression of the court’s own views on the merits — we lack any confidence that either ruling represents an act of independent judicial consideration and judgment. See Waldman v. Waldman, 520 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), review denied, 581 So. 2d 169 (Fla.1988); Hanson v. Hanson, 678 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); see also Cornett v. Cornett, 713 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
Compare Johnson v. Johnson, 725 So. 2d 1209, 1215-16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
We are reluctantly forced therefore to vacate both the initial final judgment— with the exception of dissolution of the parties’ marriage — and the order on rehearing — with the exception of the periodic alimony provision which' we endorse only as a temporary award. Our decision thus leaves every other issue in the case for initial determination by a new circuit judge, including but not limited to the wife’s claims for temporary and permanent attorney’s fees, to modify the temporary alimony referred to in this opinion or the original temporary award, and all issues relating to equitable distribution and non-marital property.1
Vacated, remanded.
. [W]e note that nothing prevents the parties from getting together and agreeing upon [a fair resolution of their dispute]. Doing so would be an appropriate "concession to the shortness of life.” American Civil Liberties Union v. Barnes, 168 F. 3d 423, 439 (11th Cir. 1999)[12 FLW Fed. C509, C514],
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bolton v. Bolton, 787 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…ror that affected the substance of the judgment, and therefore, the trial court was without jurisdiction to correct it on January 25, 2000. Given the nature of the error, we vacate both final judgments and remand for a new trial. See Manas v. Manas, 732 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 744 So. 2d 455 (Fla.1999). Reversed and remanded. PARKER, A.C.J., and SILBERMAN, J., Concur.…
-
Guillen v. Guillen, 751 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith. . It may be more economical for the parties to attempt to resolve this issue by agreement. See Manas v. Manas, 732 So. 2d 1155, 1156 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 744 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1999). . The court granted the cash value of the leave balances to the husband and awarded other assets to the wife. . Although we need not reach the issue here in light of the husband'…
-
Tullos v. Tullos, 37 So. 3d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…his litigation without any further undue expense. FN4. ... [D]oing so would be “an appropriate concession to the shortness of life.” Bogos v. Bogos, 986 So. 2d 1184, 1186-87 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (Bogos II) (footnote omitted) (quoting Manas v. Manas, 732 So. 2d 1155, 1156 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)). We reverse and remand with directions that the trial court follow the procedure we set forth in Bogos II. Reversed and remanded. CASANUEVA, C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Am. Civil Liberties Union OF Ga. v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423 (11th Cir. 1999)
- Waldman v. Waldman, 520 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Hanson v. Hanson, 678 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 725 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Cornett v. Cornett, 713 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)