ANTOINE ALCENAT, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIE ALCENAT, 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.
A successor judge cannot substantively amend a final judgment without an evidentiary hearing, and a trial judge's denial of set-offs for marital home expenses is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
[1] A successor judge may not amend a final judgment entered by a predecessor judge without holding an evidentiary hearing.
[2] A successor judge cannot enter an order or judgment based upon evidence heard by the predecessor judge.
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 intelligenceIn a dissolution action, a successor judge issued orders clarifying credits for marital home expenses paid by the wife after the husband moved out. Th…
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 Successor Judge Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, J.
In this dissolution of marriage action, Judge Art Wroble presided over the trial and entered a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, but left the bench before ruling on post-judgment motions, which were assigned to Judge Catherine Brunson. The husband, Antoine Alcenat, appeals the successor judge’s order and amended or der on his motion for clarification, wherein the successor judge ruled that the wife, Marie Alcenat, would be entitled to credit for one-half of the expenses she paid to maintain the marital home from the date the husband moved out of the home until the date of sale. The wife cross-appeals, challenging inter alia the initial trial judge’s ruling that the wife was not entitled to set-offs or credits from the husband.
On the main appeal, we agree with the husband that the pivotal issues concerning the wife’s entitlement to set-offs or credits for her expenditures on the marital home had been resolved in the final judgment and that the successor judge’s clarification orders were not clarifications at all, but were substantive changes to the final judgment. As she had not presided over the trial, the successor judge had no authority to amend the final judgment without holding an evidentiary hearing. See Beattie v. Beattie, 536 So. 2d 1078, 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (“[A] successor judge may not enter an order or judgment based upon evidence heard by the predecessor.”). As to the cross-appeal, we hold that the initial trial judge’s ruling that the wife was not entitled to any set-offs from the husband for her expenses pertaining to the marital home was not an abuse of discretion.
We have considered the other issues raised on appeal and cross-appeal and find no error. Accordingly, we reverse the order and amended order granting the husband’s motion for clarification and we affirm the final judgment of dissolution and the denial of the wife’s motion for rehearing thereon.
Affirmed in part; Reversed in part.
WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Heard v. Perales, 247 So. 3d 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…. Moreover, the case was heard by a successor judge, and “a successor judge may not enter an order or judgment based upon evidence heard by the predecessor.” Beattie v. Beattie, 536 So. 2d 1078, 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); accord Alcenat v. Alcenat, 989 So. 2d 738, 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). “The imputation of income will be affirmed if supported by competent, substantial evidence.” Hudson-McCann v. McCann, 50 So. 3d 735, 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Here, there was evidence to support the court’s rejection of t…
Authorities Cited
- Edward v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 536 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)