TOM WAITMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
JASPER WAITMAN, 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.
Tom Waitman appealed a final decree obtained against him in a chancery suit, arguing that the decree was void because it was based on interlocutory orders (a decree pro confesso and order appointing a special master) entered by a judge who subsequently disqualified himself due to a conflict of interest. The Florida Supreme Court held that under Section 2528 of the Revised General Statutes, when a judge's disqualification appears on the record, all judgments and decrees entered by that judge in the cause are void, and therefore reversed the final decree.
The court held that under Section 2528 of the Revised General Statutes of Florida, when a judge's disqualification appears on the record of a cause, all judgments, decrees, and orders rendered by that judge in that cause are void. Accordingly, the decree pro confesso and the order appointing the special master were void, and the final decree based upon them was likewise void.
“Any and all judgments, decrees and orders heretofore or hereafter rendered in causes where the disqualifications appear of record in the cause, shall be void, but where the disqualification does not so appear, they shall not be subject to collateral attack.”
This statutory provision, Section 2528 of the Revised General Statutes of Florida, 1920, provided the basis for the court's holding that decrees entered by a disqualified judge are void when the disqualification appears on the record.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn March 1924, a circuit judge entered a decree pro confesso against defendant Jasper Waitman for want of a plea, answer, or demurrer, and simultaneou…
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 Special Master'S Report cases and more on FLexlaw
Chillingworth, Circuit Judge.
Under date of March 14, 1924, the judge of the circuit court entered a decree pro confesso against the defendant for want of a plea, answer or demurrer. On the same day the judge also entered an order appointing a Special Master to take the proof and report the same to the court with his findings as to the law and the facts. The cause was presented to the Court July 17, 1924, upon the report of the Special Master, and the court then entered an order of disqualification, finding that the matters in dispute had been considered by the court as an attorney representing the complainant previously to his appointment as judge of the court, and that also before his appointment, and while practicing law, he had acted as attorney for the complainant in advising the complainant with reference to the matters involved in the suit.
On October 3, 1924, a final decree was entered by the Circuit Judge of another Circuit upon the bill, decree pro confesso, order appointing the master, and the report of the special master. The question presented is whether, under the provisions of Section 2528 Revised General Statutes of Florida, 1920, the final decree is void by reason of the fact that it was based upon two previous interlocutory decrees entered by a judge who thereafter disqualified himself.
The quoted section of the statutes reads as follows:
"Any and all judgments, decrees and orders heretofore or hereafter rendered in causes where the disqualifications appear of record in the cause, shall be void, but where the disqualification does not so appear, they shall not be subject to collateral attack.”
Under the provision of this statute we are of the opinion that the decree pro confesso and order appointing master are void. Hogan v. State, 89 Fla. 388, 104 South. Rep. 598. Hence the final decree based thereon is void.
In view of the conclusion reached in this opinion, it is not necessary to pass upon the sufficiency of the bill or the other matters presented in the appeal.
Therefore, this cause will be reversed for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Per Curiam. — The record in this cause having been considered by the Court, and the foregoing opinion prepared under Chapter 7837, Acts of 1919, adopted by the Court as its opinion, it is considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the decree of the Court below should be, and the same is hereby, reversed for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lyle v. Hunter, 102 Fla. 972 (Fla. 1931)…ges that if his rights are affected by the final decree and judgment entered in that suit he may attack the validity of that decree which is void as to him and his rights at any tme. See Hogan vs. State, 89 Fla. 388, 104 So. 598; Whitman v. Whitman, 92 Fla. 1019, 111 So. 118. The order which Judge Koonce made recusing himself was made after the entry of the attempted order appointing a special master to take the testimony in the case in which he certified his disqualification and the record shows that the…
-
State v. Chillingworth, 107 Fla. 747 (Fla. 1932)…foreclose the trust deed prior to the order of disqualification was made through oversight and was harmless, nevertheless they were void for lack of authority to enter them, so the alternative writ must be and is hereby denied. Waitman vs. Waitman, 92 Fla. 1019, 111 So. 118; State ex rel. Mickle vs. Rowe, 100 Fla. 1382, 131 So. 331; Kells vs. Davidson, 102 Fla. 684, 136 So. 450; Power vs. Chillingworth, 93 Fla. 1030, 113 So. 280. Alternative writ denied. [*752] Buford, O.J., and Whitfield and Davis, J.J.,…
Authorities Cited
- Hogan v. State, 89 Fla. 388 (Fla. 1925)