Vazquez v. Vazquez

755 So. 2d 189, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4297, 2000 WL 368652
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Vazquez v. Vazquez. Read the opinion of the Court — 827 So. 2d 384
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 12, 2000·No. No. 3D99-570·Published

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

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

755 So. 2d 189 (Vazquez v. Vazquez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Steiger v. MASSACHUSETTS CASUALTY INS.
273 So. 2d 4 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1973)
Pettry v. Pettry
706 So. 2d 107 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Delgardo v. Allstate Insurance Co.
731 So. 2d 11 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)