This decision finds that a successor judge did not abuse his discretion in granting summary judgment on a ground that the predecessor judge had rejected. When the prior judge’s ruling is overturned because it is clearly wrong, the successor judge must state in his order the reasons for finding the prior order clearly erroneous and why the interests of justice require its reversal. The successor judge did so in this case, but even if he had erred, the Court of Appeals reviews de novo and if, as here, it determines that the successor judge correctly decided the substantive issue, any error in reconsidering the prior judge’s order is harmless.