Vazquez v. Vazquez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Vazquez v. Vazquez

755 So. 2d 189, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4297, 2000 WL 368652

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 12, 2000

DocketNo. 3D99-570

StatusPublished

This text of 755 So. 2d 189 (Vazquez v. Vazquez) 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

Vazquez v. Vazquez, 755 So. 2d 189, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4297, 2000 WL 368652 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In an attempt to resolve the instant case, the trial court disposed of this simple partition action without allowing the plaintiff to present her expert witness as to the issue of damages. Therefore, we reverse the portion of the final judgment dealing with damages and special equity, and remand for an evidentiary hearing. Delgardo v. Allstate Ins. Co., 731 So.2d 11, 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(“Unless it can be shown that the testimony of a proposed witness will unnecessarily duplicate the subject matter of another witness’s testimony, the judge should ordinarily allow the party to call the witness.”); Pettry v. Pettry, 706 So.2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)(“Due process requires that a party be give the opportunity to be heard and to testify and call witnesses on his behalf, and the denial of this right is fundamental error.”) (citations omitted); see also Steiger v. Massachusetts Cas. Ins. Co., 273 So.2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

In an attempt to resolve the instant case, the trial court disposed of this simple partition action without allowing the plaintiff to present her expert witness as to the issue of damages. Therefore, we reverse the portion of the final judgment dealing with damages and special equity, and remand for an evidentiary hearing. Delgardo v. Allstate Ins. Co., 731 So.2d 11, 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(“Unless it can be shown that the testimony of a proposed witness will unnecessarily duplicate the subject matter of another witness’s testimony, the judge should ordinarily allow the party to call the witness.”); Pettry v. Pettry, 706 So.2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)(“Due process requires that a party be give the opportunity to be heard and to testify and call witnesses on his behalf, and the denial of this right is fundamental error.”) (citations omitted); see also Steiger v. Massachusetts Cas. Ins. Co., 273 So.2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

755 So. 2d 189, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4297, 2000 WL 368652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vazquez-v-vazquez-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack