Globe Aero Ltd., Inc. v. AIR & GEN. FIN. LTD.

537 So. 2d 628, 1988 WL 138550
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 27, 1988
Docket88-602
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 537 So. 2d 628 (Globe Aero Ltd., Inc. v. AIR & GEN. FIN. LTD.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Globe Aero Ltd., Inc. v. AIR & GEN. FIN. LTD., 537 So. 2d 628, 1988 WL 138550 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

537 So.2d 628 (1988)

GLOBE AERO LTD., INC., Appellant,
v.
AIR & GENERAL FINANCE LTD., Principal, and Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, Surety, Appellees.

No. 88-602.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

December 27, 1988.
Rehearing Denied February 15, 1989.

Mishan, Sloto & Hoffman, P.A., and Julie Feigeles, Miami, for appellant.

Kelley, Drye, Warren, Smathers & Thompson and Karen L. Trafford, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARDKULL, BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The original trial judge in this action entered a final default judgment against Aviation West, Air & General Finance Ltd.'s lessee, and a final judgment against Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, Air & General Finance Ltd.'s surety. The trial judge's action properly conformed to the dictates of section 76.31, Florida Statutes (1987), which requires that simultaneous judgments be entered against the defendant and surety in an attachment action where the defendant defaults following the posting of an attachment forthcoming bond and retaking of property. It was error, therefore, for another trial judge to enter an order granting Air & General's subsequent motions to intervene, to discharge principal and surety, and to discharge the attachment. Entry of the order effectively set aside the original final judgments. It has long been the rule that a successor judge "cannot review and reverse on the merits and on the same facts *629 the final orders and decrees of his predecessor." Groover v. Walker, 88 So.2d 312 (Fla. 1956). See also Boeing Co. v. Merchant, 397 So.2d 399 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (when final order has been rendered, second judge may not redecide same cause), rev. denied, 412 So.2d 468 (Fla. 1982).

The final order under review is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to reinstate the original final judgments.

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

Related

Stepp v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
656 So. 2d 494 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Wright v. Wright
559 So. 2d 1193 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Air & General Finance Ltd. v. Globe Aero Ltd.
554 So. 2d 7 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
537 So. 2d 628, 1988 WL 138550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/globe-aero-ltd-inc-v-air-gen-fin-ltd-fladistctapp-1988.