Stanford v. Stanford

940 So. 2d 605, 2006 WL 3077696

Opinion

940 So.2d 605 (2006)

Joseph STANFORD, Appellant,
v.
Miriam STANFORD, Appellee.

No. 4D06-96.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

November 1, 2006.

Richard G. Bartmon of the Law Offices of Bartmon & Bartmon, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.

Jan Peter Weiss, Lake Worth, for appellee.

FARMER, J.

In a pretrial order allowing husband's lawyer to withdraw, the court gave husband 60 days to obtain new counsel. Exactly 28 days after that order, and within the 60-day period allowed for the appearance of new counsel, the trial judge inexplicably proceeded to try the case in the absence of the husband or his counsel, entering a final judgment of dissolution of marriage—essentially by default. We reverse the trial judge's denial of the husband's later motion to vacate the final judgment.

We deem it a denial of due process to grant a litigant a specific period of time to obtain new counsel and then proceed to try the case before the afforded time has lapsed. So fundamental is the right of a litigant to rely on orders of the court, the refusal to vacate the judgment is a manifest abuse of discretion.

Reversed for new trial.

STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.