Garmon v. Garmon

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Garmon v. Garmon

920 So. 2d 209, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1873, 2006 WL 348487

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 15, 2006·No. No. 4D05-553·Published

Opinion

KLEIN, J.

The day before the final hearing in her dissolution case, appellant’s counsel notified the court that he had just been informed that a criminal case in which he was counsel was going to trial at the same time. Notwithstanding that Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.052 provides that where there are calendar conflicts, criminal cases prevail over civil cases, the court tried the case without the presence of appellant or her counsel. We reverse for a new trial.

STONE, J. and REYES, ISRAEL U., Associate Judge, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

KLEIN, J.

The day before the final hearing in her dissolution case, appellant’s counsel notified the court that he had just been informed that a criminal case in which he was counsel was going to trial at the same time. Notwithstanding that Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.052 provides that where there are calendar conflicts, criminal cases prevail over civil cases, the court tried the case without the presence of appellant or her counsel. We reverse for a new trial.

STONE, J. and REYES, ISRAEL U., Associate Judge, concur.

Garmon v. Garmon, 920 So. 2d 209, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1873, 2006 WL 348487 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

920 So. 2d 209 (Garmon v. Garmon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.