CONSTANTINO v. GENUNG (2020)

Caroline L. Constantino, as personal representative of the Estate of Martha A. Genung, appeals from the August 21, 2018, order that sets aside the trial court's August 30, 2017, final judgment of dissolution of marriage based on newly discovered evidence. The record compels us to conclude that the newly discovered evidence would not “probably [have] change[d] the result of the proceeding[ ],” see Edrington v. Edrington, 945 So. 2d 608, 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), and that the successor judge instead impermissibly substituted his judgment for that of the judge who rendered the final judgment, see Davis v. Fisher, 391 So. 2d 810, 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (“It is not the function of one trial judge to review another's judgment.” (citing Groover v. Walker, 88 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1956); McBride v. McBride, 352 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977))); see also State v. Gary, 609 So. 2d 1291, 1293 (Fla. 1992) (“As the successor judge, Chief Judge Gary had only limited authority to issue orders inconsistent with his predecessor's rulings. Limits have proved necessary ' “to promote the stability of decisions of judges of the same court and to avoid unseemly contests and differences that otherwise might arise among them to the detriment of public confidence in the judicial function.” ' “ (first citing Tingle v. Dade Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 245 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1971); and then quoting Epperson v. Epperson, 101 So. 2d 367, 369 (Fla. 1958))). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate the judgment.

Reversed; remanded with instructions.

ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge.

NORTHCUTT and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.