Monarch Cruise v. Leisure Time Tours, 456 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Monarch Cruise v. Leisure Time Tours, 456 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: PRIME PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE INC. v. ALLIED TRUCKING OF FLORIDA, INC. (fladistctapp, 2023-09-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) PRIME PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE INC. v. ALLIED TRUCKING OF FLORIDA, INC.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
Corp., 282 So. 3d 933 , 935 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (finding “no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the insureds’ motion for rehearing premised upon new evidence” and noting that the trial court “has the discretion to refuse to consider a counter-affidavit presented for the first time on a motion for rehearing of a summary judgment as being too late.”) (quoting Knowles v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 994 So. 2d 1218, 1219-20 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)); Monarch Cruise Line, Inc. v. Leisure Time Tours, Inc., 456 So. 2d 1278, 1279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (classifying trial court's ruling…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Campagna v. Cope
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
See Trammell v. Ward, 667 So.2d 223, 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (concluding the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant rehearing); Monarch Cruise Line, Inc. v. Leisure Time Tours, Inc., 456 So.2d 1278, 1280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (classifying trial court's ruling on motion for rehearing as a "discretionary act of the trial judge" not to be disturbed without "a clear showing that the trial court abused its discretion").
discussed Cited "see" Bonilla v. Yale Mortgage Corp.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Monarch Cruise Line, Inc. v. Leisure Time Tours, Inc., 456 So.2d 1278, 1279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (holding that the denial of a motion for rehearing is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).
MONARCH CRUISE LINE, INC., Appellant,
v.
LEISURE TIME TOURS, INC., and Leisure Time Travel, Inc., Appellees.
83-2074.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct 2, 1984.
456 So. 2d 1278
Hendry, Baskin and Daniel S. Pearson.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

[*1279] Shutts & Bowen and Glenn G. Kolk, Miami, for appellant.

Hugh F. Quinn, Miami, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by Monarch Cruise Lines, Inc. from an order granting a rehearing to the plaintiffs/appellees, Leisure Time Tours, Inc. and Leisure Time Travel, Inc., following a non-jury trial.[1]

The grounds stated in the order under appeal were as follows:

"(a) It is apparent to the Court that counsel for the plaintiffs may have been misled into a premature trial based upon the pre-trial stipulation entered into between the parties.
(b) That justice requires that there be a full and complete trial of all of the issues at one time, and not in a bifurcated manner as was done heretofore."

The parties went to trial expecting that the hearing would be bifurcated, as had been stipulated to and approved by the court. However, after hearing the evidence presented by both parties the court announced that it would enter a final judgment on the basis of the evidence presented.

The appellees contend that they were misled by the court, resulting in their failure to be fully prepared for the hearing in that a material witness was not then available to testify.

Appellant's point on appeal is that the trial court erred in granting a rehearing without any proof of the alleged new evidence or showing as to why it was not presented at the hearing. We find appellant's contention to be without merit, and affirm.

In reviewing this type of discretionary act of the trial judge, the appellate court should apply the reasonableness test to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion. Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So.2d 1341 (Fla. 1981); Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So.2d 145 (Fla. 1980). The ruling should stand, unless it appears that there was a clear showing that the trial court abused its discretion.[*1280] Castlewood International Corp. v. LaFleur, 322 So.2d 520 (Fla. 1975); Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla. 1959).

The record in this case does not establish that the trial court abused its discretion in granting appellees' motion for a rehearing on the grounds set forth in the order. Accordingly, the order appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1 We have jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 9.110(a)(3), Fla.R.App.P., since the order in effect grants a new trial.