Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce

When can a party ask to re-open the evidence so that additional witnesses and evidence can be submitted to the court after a hearing is over? This is essentially a request for a second chance to present evidence to the court that may have been missed. The circumstances under which this request will be granted were discussed in the case Allen v. Allen, 1D21-2652, (Fla. 1st DCA August 3, 2022).

Years after the parties were divorced, the former wife filed a motion that among other things, requested the court to clarify pension benefits due to her under the final judgment. After a hearing at which the former wife, former husband and the pension fund manager testified, the court entered an order specifying the former wife’s entitlement to the former husband’s pension. The former husband then hired a new attorney who filed a motion to re-open the evidence, arguing additional testimony was needed from the pension manager to separate the former husband’s marital and non-marital components of his pension account. This motion was denied and the former husband appealed.

The appellate court noted “In cases heard without a jury, Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.530(a) allows the court to ‘open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, and enter a new judgment.’ [. . .] When considering a party’s request to reopen the evidence, a court considers several factors: ‘(1) its timeliness; (2) the character of evidence she seeks to introduce; (3) the effect of the evidence’s admission; and (4) the reasonableness of her excuse justifying reopening.’ [. . .] While a trial court’s discretion to reopen evidence is broad, it ‘is not unlimited, for it may allow reopening only ‘where this can be done without injustice to the other party.’ [. . .] A trial court abuses its discretion only when it adopts a position that no reasonable person would take.”

The appellate court rejected the former husband’s arguments, holding “Here, Former Husband was displeased with the court’s interpretation of which pension benefits he owed Former Wife. [. . .] The gravamen of Former Husband’s motion was his belief that the trial court misinterpreted the Consent Judgment, resulting in a windfall to Former Wife. However, additional testimony from [the pension manager] could not have remedied this alleged error, which—if it existed—would be legal in nature. While [the pension manager] could have offered additional testimony about the value of Former Husband’s pension on certain dates, under the trial court’s interpretation of the Consent Judgment, this additional information would have been irrelevant. Thus, while Former Husband’s motion to reopen was timely, it was not based on a claim of newly discovered evidence and would not have yielded any testimony that could have altered the trial’s result. Equally important, Former Wife would have been unfairly prejudiced by having to retry a central issue that would have allowed Former Husband a ‘second bite at the apple to prove an essential element of [his] case.’”

Schedule your appointment with a Miami family law attorney to understand how the law may apply to the facts of your case.