DOREEN B. SIEGEL, APPELLANT,
v.
BOCA CHASE PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED AND CITY NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA, 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.
Doreen Siegel appealed a foreclosure order entered by a trial court against her homeowners association for delinquent assessments. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court signed an unsolicited proposed final judgment submitted by the opposing party without requesting it and with minimal time for Siegel to respond, violating procedural fairness.
The court reversed the final judgment because the trial court erred in signing the unsolicited proposed final judgment without requesting it and providing only three days for the opposing party to respond, which violated procedural fairness and due process. A new trial is required because credibility determinations cannot be made solely on the written transcript.
[1] A trial court errs by signing a proposed final judgment submitted by one party when the court did not request it and the opposing party had virtually no opportunity to fi…
[2] A new trial is required when the resolution of the merits of a case depends on credibility determinations that cannot be made solely on the basis of a written transcript.
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“the trial court erred in signing a proposed final judgment submitted by Boca Chase, which was not requested by the trial court and signed only three days after Boca Chase's simultaneous certificate of service of the proposed final judgment to both the trial court and Siegel, giving Siegel virtually no opportunity to file a meaningful response”
Establishes the core procedural error: the trial court's improper acceptance of an unsolicited proposed final judgment without adequate notice to the opposing party.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSiegel owned property in Boca Chase and fell behind on assessments owed to the Boca Chase Property Owners' Association. The trial court held a non-jur…
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 Credibility Determinations cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, J.
In this appeal, Doreen Siegel challenges a final order of foreclosure due to delinquent payment of assessments to her homeowrier’s association,, Boca Chase Property Owners Association, Inc. We reverse because the trial court erred in signing a proposed final judgment submitted by Boca Chase, which was hot requested by the trial court and signed only three days after Boca Chase’s simultaneous certificate of service of the proposed final judgment to both the trial court and Sie- gel, giving Siegel virtually no opportunity to file a meaningful response. See Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383, 390 (Fla. 2004); Boss v. Botha, 867 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
We reverse and remand for a new trial. We order the new trial for several reasons. The final order on appeal was the third “final” judgment entered in this case. The non-jury trial was held before Judge John D. Wessel on March 5, 2004. At the conclusion of the trial, the court invited both sides to submit proposed final judgments. On March 15, 2004, the court signed the proposed final judgment submitted by Sie-gel and entered an order denying the foreclosure. The next day, on March 16, 2004, the trial court signed the proposed order submitted by Boca Chase and entered an order granting the foreclosure.
Boca Chase moved for clarification of the two conflicting final judgments and the trial court vacated both judgments and set the matter for rehearing. At the conclusion of this non-evidentiary hearing, which was held on April 12, 2004, Boca Chase offered a proposed final judgment, but the trial judge did not take it and stated that he would take the matter “under submission” and “let you know.” The trial court gave no indication of its leanings in the case at the conclusion of the hearing. On May 3, 2004, after a little over three weeks had passed, Boca Chase sent an unsolicited proposed final judgment to both the trial court and Siegel’s counsel. The trial court signed the proposed final judgment three days later on May 6, 2004. Since the final judgment was entered, Judge Wessel has retired. The resolution of the merits of this case depends on credibility determinations that should not be made on the basis of the written transcript alone. Thus, a new trial is required.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
FARMER, C.J., concurs.
BROWN, LUCY CHERNOW, Associate Judge, concurs specially with opinion.
BROWN, LUCY CHERNOW, Associate Judge,
concurring specially.
I agree entirely with the majority that a new trial is required. However, had appellee’s trial attorney simply sent the proposed final judgment to opposing counsel a few days before forwarding it to Judge Wessel, the problem could have been avoided, the attorney’s reputation for professionalism enhanced, and the parties spared a second trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Esig Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2004)
- Ross v. Hayley Lisa Botha, 867 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)