STANFORD v. STANFORD (2006)

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Fourth District.

Joseph STANFORD, Appellant, v. Miriam STANFORD, Appellee.

No. 4D06-96.

Decided: November 01, 2006

Richard G. Bartmon of the Law Offices of Bartmon & Bartmon, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant. Jan Peter Weiss, Lake Worth, for appellee.

In a pretrial order allowing husband's lawyer to withdraw, the court gave husband 60 days to obtain new counsel. Exactly 28 days after that order, and within the 60-day period allowed for the appearance of new counsel, the trial judge inexplicably proceeded to try the case in the absence of the husband or his counsel, entering a final judgment of dissolution of marriage-essentially by default. We reverse the trial judge's denial of the husband's later motion to vacate the final judgment.

We deem it a denial of due process to grant a litigant a specific period of time to obtain new counsel and then proceed to try the case before the afforded time has lapsed. So fundamental is the right of a litigant to rely on orders of the court, the refusal to vacate the judgment is a manifest abuse of discretion.

Reversed for new trial.

FARMER, J.

STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network