Stanford v. Stanford
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2006 JOSEPH STANFORD, Appellant, v. MIRIAM STANFORD, Appellee. No. 4D06-96 [November 1, 2006] 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. * * * Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Art Wroble, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50 2005 DR 002155 FZ. Richard G. Bartmon of the Law Offices of Bartmon & Bartmon, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant. Jan Peter Weiss, Lake Worth, for appellee. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
