Ragar v. Ragar

600 So. 2d 1203, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5820, 1992 WL 118334
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 5, 1992·No. No. 90-2543·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the ruling of the trial court denying the parties’ motions for modification. We reverse the award of attorney fees on authority of Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985).

For the benefit of the trial judge, we point out that a successor judge may not correct errors of law committed by his predecessor, and, hence, he cannot review and reverse on the merits and on the same facts the final orders of his predecessor. Groover v. Walker, 88 So.2d 312 (Fla.1956).

COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur. GRIFFIN, J., concurs in part, dissents in part, with opinion.

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

Ragar v. Ragar, 600 So. 2d 1203, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5820, 1992 WL 118334 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

600 So. 2d 1203 (Ragar v. Ragar) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Elmowitz v. Estate of Zimmerman
647 So. 2d 1064 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)