PER CURIAM.

We grant the petition for writ of certiorari, quash the April 29, 2015 order of the trial court, and remand for further proceedings. The challenged order found that petitioners had waived accountant-client privilege1 at an earlier, September 16, 2014 hearing. Such finding is facially erroneous because, at the time of the September 16, 2014 hearing, the accounting firm had not yet provided the list of documents to which petitioners could direct an assertion of privilege. The result of the April 29, 2015 order was that the trial court found a waiver of the accountant-client privilege without first affording petitioners notice or an opportunity to object.

There are no transcripts of either hearing as each hearing was held on a "uniform motion calendar" where the introduction of evidence is not permitted. D'Amato v. D'Amato, 848 So.2d 462, 463-64 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Nonetheless, we may consider the propriety of the April 29, 2015 order because the error in finding a waiver of an assertion of privilege without notice or evidentiary basis is apparent on the face of the order. Young v. Levy, 140 So.3d 1109, 1111-12 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Celebrity Cruises, Inc. v. Fernandes, 149 So.3d 744, 749 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). The trial court's April 29, 2015 order was erroneous on its face because the court determined that petitioners waived the accountant-client privilege without conducting an evidentiary hearing either on that date or at the September 16, 2014 hearing. Eight Hundred, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't of Revenue, 837 So.2d 574, 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

Petition granted; order quashed; and case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

WARNER, STEVENSON and GERBER, JJ., concur.