Caroline L. Constantino, as Personal Representative v. Robert G. Genung
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledAugust 7, 2020
Docket2D18-3724
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
CAROLINE L. CONSTANTINO, )
as personal representative of the )
Estate of Martha A. Genung, )
deceased, )
)
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2D18-3724
)
ROBERT G. GENUNG, )
)
Appellee. )
)
Opinion filed August 7, 2020.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for
Collier County; Scott H. Cupp, Judge.
Mark V. Silverio and Cynthia B. Hall
of Silverio & Hall, P.A., Naples, for
Appellant.
Jennifer J. Kennedy of Abbey, Adams,
Byelick, & Mueller, L.L.P., St.
Petersburg, for Appellee.
ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge.
Caroline L. Constantino, as personal representative of the Estate of
Martha A. Genung, appeals from the August 21, 2018, order that sets aside the trial
court's August 30, 2017, final judgment of dissolution of marriage based on newly
discovered evidence. The record compels us to conclude that the newly discovered
evidence would not "probably [have] change[d] the result of the proceeding[]," see
Edrington v. Edrington, 945 So. 2d 608, 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), and that the
successor judge instead impermissibly substituted his judgment for that of the judge
who rendered the final judgment, see Davis v. Fisher, 391 So. 2d 810, 811 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1980) ("It is not the function of one trial judge to review another's judgment." (citing
Groover v. Walker, 88 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1956); McBride v. McBride, 352 So. 2d 1254
(Fla. 1st DCA 1977))); see also State v. Gary, 609 So. 2d 1291, 1293 (Fla. 1992) ("As
the successor judge, Chief Judge Gary had only limited authority to issue orders
inconsistent with his predecessor's rulings. Limits have proved necessary ' "to promote
the stability of decisions of judges of the same court and to avoid unseemly contests
and differences that otherwise might arise among them to the detriment of public
confidence in the judicial function." ' " (first citing Tingle v. Dade Cty. Bd. of Cty.
Comm'rs, 245 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1971); and then quoting Epperson v. Epperson, 101 So.
2d 367, 369 (Fla. 1958))). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to
reinstate the judgment.
Reversed; remanded with instructions.
NORTHCUTT and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
-2-