Case Name: Joseph STANFORD, Appellant, v. Miriam STANFORD, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2006-11-01
Citations: 940 So. 2d 605
Docket Number: No. 4D06-96
Parties: Joseph STANFORD, Appellant, v. Miriam STANFORD, Appellee.
Judges: STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 940
Pages: 605–606

Head Matter:
Joseph STANFORD, Appellant, v. Miriam STANFORD, Appellee.
No. 4D06-96.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Nov. 1, 2006.
Richard G. Bartmon of the Law Offices of Bartmon & Bartmon, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.
Jan Peter Weiss, Lake Worth, for appel-lee.

Opinion:
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.