Case Name: Nathan FLEISCHER, Appellant, v. HI-RISE HOMES, INC., Gerald Greenfield, George Charak and Sheldon H. Hoffman, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-12-14
Citations: 536 So. 2d 1101
Docket Number: No. 85-2372
Parties: Nathan FLEISCHER, Appellant, v. HI-RISE HOMES, INC., Gerald Greenfield, George Charak and Sheldon H. Hoffman, Appellees.
Judges: HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY, DELL, WALDEN, GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 536
Pages: 1101–1105

Head Matter:
Nathan FLEISCHER, Appellant, v. HI-RISE HOMES, INC., Gerald Greenfield, George Charak and Sheldon H. Hoffman, Appellees.
No. 85-2372.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Dec. 14, 1988.
Jerome L. Tepps of Tepps & Glerum, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Larry Klein of Klein & Beranek, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellees.

Opinion:
LETTS, Judge.
In February of 1987, by request of a majority of the original panel, the court decided to en banc this case. At that time, neither our Internal Rules nor rule 9.331 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure required the court to notify counsel unless the court was requesting additional briefs or further argument. Recently, our Internal Rules were amended to provide that counsel would be advised of pending en banc treatment. This amendment provided the springboard for a September 12, 1988 order advising counsel that the cause was being considered en banc.
Rule 9.331 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that "en banc hearings and rehearings shall not be ordered unless the case is of exceptional importance or unless necessary to maintain uniformity in the court's decisions." In this regard, in the case at bar, it was our collective en banc intent, to recede from certain language in Gordon v. Bartlett, 452 So.2d 1077, 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), which might give the impression that warranty deeds could be expected to "contain an express provision regarding the recovery of attorney's fees."
After protracted debate, for which we must confess judicial dismay, we now conclude that the offending Gordon language does not constitute a matter of "exceptional importance." We also conclude that since the offending language was not the holding in Gordon, it is not necessary to consider excising that language en banc, in order to "maintain uniformity in the court's decisions."
In short, there is no conflict, no need to recede and an absence of exceptional importance.
Accordingly, a majority of the judges, in regular active service on this court, hereby vote to reconsider and now vote to not render an en banc decision. We also vacate the order of September 12, 1988, and return this cause to the original panel of three judges for such disposition as they deem appropriate.
HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY, DELL, WALDEN, GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.
GLICKSTEIN, J., dissents with opinion, with which ANSTEAD, J., concurs.