WASA INTERNATIONAL INS. CO., APPELLANT,
v.
MERCEDES HURTADO, 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.
Wasa International Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment order, claiming the trial judge lacked authority to reconsider prior rulings and that it was denied due process by lack of notice and opportunity to present evidence. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that a trial judge has authority to modify interlocutory orders before final judgment and that Wasa received adequate notice and opportunity to respond.
A trial judge has the power to vacate or modify interlocutory rulings and orders of her predecessor in a case until final judgment is entered. Wasa was not denied due process because it received notice of the summary judgment motion filed more than twenty days prior to the hearing and was given sixty additional days after the judgment to obtain evidence in opposition, which it failed to do.
[1] A trial court retains the power to vacate or modify interlocutory rulings or orders until a final judgment is entered.
[2] A trial court has discretion to allow a party to point out and rely on specific portions of the record that are in evidence.
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“While a judge should hesitate to undo his own work, and should hesitate still more to undo the work of another judge, he does have, until the final judgment, the power to do so and may therefore vacate or modify the interlocutory rulings or orders of his predecessor in the case.”
Establishes the trial judge's authority to reconsider and modify prior orders before final judgment is entered
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWasa International Insurance Company challenged a summary judgment order entered by the trial court. The trial judge reconsidered and modified her own…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Wasa International Insurance Company claims that the bases for an order of final summary judgment had either never been raised or already been decided, that the matter was not scheduled or noticed for hearing, and that it had no opportunity to present any evidence in opposition. “While a judge should hesitate to undo his own work, and should hesitate still more to undo the work of another judge, he does have, until the final judgment, the power to do so and may therefore vacate or modify the interlocutory rulings or orders of his predecessor in the case.” Tingle v. Dade County Bd. of County Commissioners, 245 So. 2d 76, 78 (Fla.1971); see also State v. Del Rey, 643 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).
Because the trial judge here had not entered a final judgment in the case, she could modify her previous rulings and those of her predecessor.
The trial court also had discretion to allow Mercedes Hurtado to point out and rely on the fact that the insurance application referenced the master group insurance policy; the insurance policy was in evidence. See Tingle, 245 So. 2d at 77 (not error in allowing party to “point out specific portions of the record ... upon which they wished to rely”).
Furthermore, Wasa was given an opportunity to bring forth any evidence regarding the summary judgment issues.
The trial court’s order granting summary judgment allowed Wasa sixty additional days to obtain evidence to counter the summary judgment ruling.
However, Wasa did not file any affidavits or any other evidence in opposition to the ruling. Besides, the motion for summary judgment, which the trial court revisited, was filed more than twenty days prior to the hearing.
Therefore, Wasa was not denied due process.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hull & Co., Inc. v. Clair Thomas, 834 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…e power to vacate or modify a predecessor’s interlocutory rulings, such as an order on a motion for summary judgment. See Karn v. Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate, Inc., 705 So. 2d 680, 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Wasa Int’l Ins. Co. v. Hurtado, 749 So. 2d 579, 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Stepp v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 656 So. 2d 494, 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Collier v. Dade County, 417 So. 2d 695, 696 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (rejecting appellant’s argument that successor judge was precluded from revisi…
-
Shaquille O'Neal v. Darling, 321 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…. In this case, the record shows no evidence of an error of law, mistake of fact, or fraud. ---PAGE 9--- (successor judge may “vacate or modify the interlocutory rulings or orders of his predecessor in the case.”); Wasa Int'l Ins. Co. v. Hurtado, 749 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); see also Jauregui v. Bobb’s Piano Sales & Serv., Inc., 922 So. 2d 303, 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that “the successor judge lacked the power or authority to revisit, much less reverse, the previous decision on the merit…
-
Fratangelo v. Olsen, 271 So. 3d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…nd those of his predecessor. See Tingle v. Dade Cty Bd. of Cty Commissioners, 245 So. 2d 76, 78 (Fla. 1971) (successor judge may "vacate or modify the interlocutory rulings or orders of his predecessor in the case."); Wasa Int'l Ins. Co. v. Hurtado, 749 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). To be sure, the facts became more fully developed once the litigation entered the second trial phase. During the second trial phase, the court found substantial competent evidence that Fratangelo breached the General Agreements b…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anne E. Tingle v. Dade Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs, 245 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1971)
- Orange Cnty. Med. Clinic & Alexsis v. Cappadona, 643 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)