A. PAUL JENSEN, KEITH D. JENSEN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND CLARE M. JENSEN, KEITH D. JENSEN AND ANDREW PAUL JENSEN, AS CO-EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF A. P. JENSEN, DECEASED, PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS,
v.
WILLIAM J. HOOFE AND WILLIAM J. HOOFE, III, DEFENDANTS AND COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS

Fla. 3d DCA | 1966-03-29
No. 66-117
Before HENDRY, C J., and BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.
184 So. 2d 696 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1966)

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.

Synopsis

The Florida District Court of Appeal declined to answer a certified question regarding a reassigned judge's jurisdiction to vacate a default judgment. The court found the question inappropriate because the default judgment's propriety had already been decided in a prior appeal, establishing the law of the case.


Holding

The court declined to answer the certified question, finding it inappropriate for certification.


Key Quotes

“DOES A CIRCUIT JUDGE TO WHOM A CAUSE IS REASSIGNED HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND RULE UPON A MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WHEN THE FIRST CIRCUIT JUDGE BEFORE WHOM THE CASE WAS ORIGINALLY PENDING, WHO REFUSED TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT, HAS BEEN JUDICIALLY PROHIBITED FROM PROCEEDING WITH THE CAUSE BECAUSE OF HIS PREJUDICE?”

This is the certified question presented to the court.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

A case involved a motion to vacate a default judgment. The original judge refused to vacate it and was later prohibited from proceeding due to prejudi…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to Rule 4.6, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., the following question has been certified to this court:

“DOES A CIRCUIT JUDGE TO WHOM A CAUSE IS REASSIGNED HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND RULE UPON A MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WHEN THE FIRST CIRCUIT JUDGE BEFORE WHOM THE CASE WAS ORIGINALLY PENDING, WHO REFUSED TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT, HAS BEEN JUDICIALLY PROHIBITED FROM PROCEEDING WITH THE CAUSE BECAUSE OF HIS PREJUDICE?”

We decline to answer the question as the default judgment referred to therein has been before this court previously, and the propriety of refusing to vacate same has been upheld. See: Jensen v. Hoofe, Fla.App. 1962, 136 So.2d 680. Therefore, this ruling became the law of the case [see: McGregor v. Provident Trust Co. of Philadelphia, 119 Fla. 718, 162 So. 323; King v. Citizens and Southern National Bank of Atlanta, Ga., Fla.App. 1960, 119 So.2d 67; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § SOI], and a determination of this case having already been made the certification is inappropriate. See: Prigger v. Kingery, Fla.App. 1962, 144 So.2d 323; Johnson v. Southeast Title and Insurance Company, Fla.App. 1963, 148 So.2d 67; Ray v. Mercy Hospital, Fla.App.1964, 169 So.2d 502.

It further appears that the prejudice referred to in the question occurred subsequent to the ruling on the motion to vacate the default and arose out of events which occurred subsequent to the mandate in Jensen v. Hoofe, supra. See: State ex rel. Jensen v. Cannon, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 535; State ex rel. Jensen v. Cannon, Fla.App. 1964, 166 So.2d 625.

For the reasons stated, the question was not proper for certification.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw