Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

385 So. 2d 733

Docket No. 79-1640.

Kirkham v. Kirkham

Dorothy M. KIRKHAM, Appellant, v. Fred R. KIRKHAM, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1980-07-09

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently September 1985

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Unless the original trial judge is unable by reason of death, disability or other equivalent reason, or is unwilling by reason of recusation to consider a motion for rehearing, that judge should review and determine the motion. Epperson v. Epperson, 101 So.2d 367 (Fla.1958). Here, even though the circuit court assigned Judge Walker to another division, his jurisdiction to hear a motion for rehearing continued.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 414 So. 2d 1180 - Chapman Realty Corp. v. Madeira Management, Inc.

Relies on Epperson v. Epperson · 279 So. 2d 94 - Balfe v. Gulf Oil Company-Latin America · Mason v. Martino

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1980-07-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*734 Jerry R. Hussey, Bradenton, for appellant.

¶2Harry G. Goodheart, III, of Goodheart & Logan, Bradenton, for appellee.

¶3SCHEB, Chief Judge.

¶4The husband sued to annul his marriage to the wife who counterpetitioned for dissolution. The case was assigned to Judge Grissim H. Walker who presided at the final hearing and entered final judgment on June 13, 1979, granting the annulment and directing disposition of some joint assets. The wife timely moved for rehearing alleging the final judgment contained clerical errors and failed to dispose of some issues raised by the parties. She requested Judge Walker's office to set a hearing on her motion.

¶5On July 1, under a plan established by the judges of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Judge Walker rotated to a different division. The circuit court then assigned the wife's motion for rehearing to Judge Schaub, Judge Walker's successor, who corrected the clerical errors but otherwise denied the motion. The wife argues that it was error for a successor judge to rule on her motion for rehearing. We agree.

¶6Unless the original trial judge is unable by reason of death, disability or other equivalent event, or is unwilling by reason of recusation to consider a motion for rehearing, that judge should review and determine the motion. Epperson v. Epperson,101 So.2d 367 (Fla. 1958). Here, even though the circuit court assigned Judge Walker to another division, his jurisdiction to hear a motion for rehearing continued. See Mason v. Martino,336 So.2d 396 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). Under these circumstances Judge Walker should have heard the motion. Balfe v. Gulf Oil Co.,279 So.2d 94 (Fla.3d DCA 1973).

¶7Accordingly, we vacate the order denying rehearing and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶8GRIMES and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

/385/so2d/733 · .json · Public domain