Saidi v. Saidi

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Saidi v. Saidi

704 So. 2d 1135, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 438, 1998 WL 20766

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 23, 1998

DocketNo. 96-2331

StatusPublished

This text of 704 So. 2d 1135 (Saidi v. Saidi) 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

Saidi v. Saidi, 704 So. 2d 1135, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 438, 1998 WL 20766 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON, Judge.

Ahmad Y. Saidi, the husband, appeals the final judgment of dissolution, contending that the court erred in taking evidence, in distributing the marital assets, in finding the wife entitled to attorney’s fees and permanent alimony, and in failing to disqualify itself. We find the first issue dispositive and reverse and remand for a new trial.

We recognize that the husband, for the most part pro se below, made a difficult situation even more difficult, but it was improper for the court to order the parties to respond to its interrogatories after the trial was over. The procedure amounted to a reopening of the trial to improper ex parte communications in the form of hearsay that could not be rebutted and cannot be sustained. See Hanson v. Hanson, 678 So.2d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment except those parts awarding custody and dissolving the marriage, and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

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

THOMPSON, Judge.

Ahmad Y. Saidi, the husband, appeals the final judgment of dissolution, contending that the court erred in taking evidence, in distributing the marital assets, in finding the wife entitled to attorney’s fees and permanent alimony, and in failing to disqualify itself. We find the first issue dispositive and reverse and remand for a new trial.

We recognize that the husband, for the most part pro se below, made a difficult situation even more difficult, but it was improper for the court to order the parties to respond to its interrogatories after the trial was over. The procedure amounted to a reopening of the trial to improper ex parte communications in the form of hearsay that could not be rebutted and cannot be sustained. See Hanson v. Hanson, 678 So.2d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment except those parts awarding custody and dissolving the marriage, and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

704 So. 2d 1135, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 438, 1998 WL 20766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saidi-v-saidi-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack