11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 404a
Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Evidence — Judicial notice — Error to determine confession of judgment and entitlement to attorney’s fees on ground that insurer had settled case with insured without reviewing settlement agreement in camera and to base determination on order rendered in another case without bringing record of other case into current case — Court taking judicial notice of evidence in related case must bring evidence into record of case under consideration
UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. ANA JACOBY, Appellee. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 03-092 AP. L.C. Case No. 19995859 CC 25. March 23, 2004. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County. Jeffrey David Feldman, for Appellant. Marlene S. Reiss, for Appellee.
(AMY STEELE DONNER, RONALD M. FRIEDMAN, and ARTHUR L. ROTHENBERG, JJ.)
(PER CURIAM.) In the instant case, the trial court found a confession of judgment by Appellant on the ground that it had settled the disputed case with the Appellee. However, the trial judge failed to review the settlement agreement in camera prior to determining a confession of judgment and entitlement to attorneys fees. Instead, the trial court judge based her determination on an order rendered in another case, which is Biceiro v. United Automobile, Case # 99-26545 CA2. The trial court awarded appellee attorney’s fees and costs. This appeal ensued.
Case law has shown that it is proper for trial court and appellate courts to take judicial notice of pleadings and briefs of other actions which bear a relationship to the case at bar. See Falls v. National Envtl. Products, 665 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). However, case law also indicates that “if a court proposes to take judicial notice of evidence in another case, that evidence must be brought into the record of the case under consideration.” See Pan American Stone Co., Inc., v. L.A. Meister, 527 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (it was reversible error to consider evidence presented to it in another case without having brought the record of the prior case into the current case).
The Biceiro order reflected the fact that the judge heard arguments of counsel, reviewed all matters contained in the records, and reviewed the settlement agreement in camera prior to making his determination. In contrast, the record in the instant case indicates that the trial judge failed to review the settlement agreement in camera, or pertinent portions of the Biceiro court file prior to making her determination. Accordingly, the trial court erred. We REVERSE and REMAND this case to the trial court with instructions for the trial court to review the settlement agreement in camera, and any pertinent documents prior to making a determination in this case.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
* * *
