Maler ex rel. Maler v. Geraldi

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Maler ex rel. Maler v. Geraldi

566 So. 2d 947, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7390, 1990 WL 138825

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 25, 1990

DocketNo. 89-1822

StatusPublished

This text of 566 So. 2d 947 (Maler ex rel. Maler v. Geraldi) 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

Maler ex rel. Maler v. Geraldi, 566 So. 2d 947, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7390, 1990 WL 138825 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM-

OS Motion for Rehearing

Upon consideration of appellee’s motion for rehearing and/or clarification of our opinion dated July 10, 1990 and appellants’ response thereto, we withdraw the opinion and substitute the following:

After careful review of the transcript of the hearing below and the court’s order reconstructing the record, we conclude that the trial court did, in fact, take judicial notice of the judgment in the companion case, and likewise took judicial notice of related liabilities brought to his attention by plaintiffs’ counsel. In the absence of a contemporaneous objection to the procedure followed by the court, objection may not now initially be made on appeal. Chriss v. Chriss, 417 So.2d 835, 836 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We therefore affirm.

Both parties have informed us, however, that the judgment in the companion case has been set aside. It is evident that the trial court’s ruling was predicated upon the existence of the companion judgment. Plaintiffs would therefore be entitled to be granted relief from judgment in the present case. Our ruling is without prejudice to the plaintiffs to so move in the trial court.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM-

OS Motion for Rehearing

Upon consideration of appellee’s motion for rehearing and/or clarification of our opinion dated July 10, 1990 and appellants’ response thereto, we withdraw the opinion and substitute the following:

After careful review of the transcript of the hearing below and the court’s order reconstructing the record, we conclude that the trial court did, in fact, take judicial notice of the judgment in the companion case, and likewise took judicial notice of related liabilities brought to his attention by plaintiffs’ counsel. In the absence of a contemporaneous objection to the procedure followed by the court, objection may not now initially be made on appeal. Chriss v. Chriss, 417 So.2d 835, 836 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We therefore affirm.

Both parties have informed us, however, that the judgment in the companion case has been set aside. It is evident that the trial court’s ruling was predicated upon the existence of the companion judgment. Plaintiffs would therefore be entitled to be granted relief from judgment in the present case. Our ruling is without prejudice to the plaintiffs to so move in the trial court.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

566 So. 2d 947, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7390, 1990 WL 138825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maler-ex-rel-maler-v-geraldi-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack