CHARLES BARNETT, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM R. BARNETT, TRUSTEE, ET AL., 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.
In this appeal from a declaratory judgment regarding trust proceeds, the appellate court found it unable to determine whether the trial court admitted or excluded various evidence and whether its ruling rested on admissible evidence. The court remanded the case with directions for the trial judge to make specific evidentiary rulings before the appellate court could proceed.
The appellate court held that it could not determine from the record whether the trial court admitted or excluded much of the evidence presented, and therefore could not determine if the trial court's ruling was based on admissible evidence. The court temporarily relinquished jurisdiction to allow the trial court to make specific rulings on each evidentiary objection.
[1] A trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence must be specific to allow for appellate review.
[2] An appellate court may relinquish jurisdiction to a trial court to obtain specific rulings on evidence previously taken under advisement.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 Court received a great deal of evidentuary matter presently in the record with a reserved ruling on objections to its admissibility.”
Trial court's acknowledgment of the evidentiary issues that made appellate review problematic
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a complicated and lengthy trial determining whether the appellant was entitled to proceeds from a trust. The trial court received nu…
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 Hearsay Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final declaratory judgment determining the question of whether or not appellant is entitled to proceeds from a trust. It was a complicated and lengthy trial and involved numerous questions as to the admissibility of evidence. The trial court, in its memorandum opinion, stated as follows regarding such evidence:
“The Court received a great deal of evi-dentuary matter presently in the record with a reserved ruling on objections to its admissibility. The Court finds that all of these exhibits are admissible for the general purpose of presenting the overall picture. Some are inadmissible as proof of the facts they purport to recite and shall not be relied upon by the Court unless specifically referred to. The pedigree evidence is also admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule; however, evidence of a more direct nature has been relied upon by the Court in reaching the ultimate conclusion herein.”
Having considered the record, the briefs and the oral argument of counsel, we find that we are unable to determine whether or not the trial court admitted or excluded much of the evidence presented in the case. We are, thus, unable to determine whether or not the trial court based its ruling on admissible or inadmissible evidence. We, therefore, temporarily relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court with directions to enter a further order making specific rulings on each objection to evidence which he took under advisement during the course of the trial and making reference to the page of the transcript where such evidence was offered and taken under advisement. The appellant will then be allowed a period of 10 days from the filing of the trial judge’s order to file supplemental assignments of error and appellee will thereafter be allowed 10 days within which to file cross assignments of error. Then appellant will have 10 days to file a supplemental brief and appellee will have 10 days thereafter for supplemental brief and appellant five days thereafter for reply brief. The court will thereafter give further consideration to this appeal.
RAWLS, C. J., and McCORD and BOYER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barnett v. Barnett, 340 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…y the trial judge to the attorneys for the trustee, appellee, incident to a dispute and ensuing litigation among the trust beneficiaries. The factual background may be found in two prior opinions of this Court, Barnett v. Barnett, Fla.App. 1st 1974, 304 So. 2d 482 and Barnett v. Barnett, Fla.App. 1st 1976, 336 So. 2d 1213. By our first above-mentioned opinion, we temporarily relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court with directions that it enter a further order making specific rulings on each objection to…