"If by reason of death, sickness, or other disability, a judge before whom an action has been tried is unable to perform the duties to be performed by the court under these rules after a verdict is returned or findings of fact and conclusions of law are filed, then any other judge regularly sitting in or assigned to the court in which the action was tried may perform those duties; but if such other judge is satisfied that he cannot perform those duties because he did not preside at the trial or for any other reason, he may in his discretion grant a new trial. "In Birmingham Retail Center Associates, Ltd. v. Eastwood Festival Associates, 608 So.2d 340 (Ala.1992), our supreme court, citing Trail Pontiac–GMC Truck, Inc. v. Evans, 540 So.2d 645 (Ala.1988), and Hall v. Hall, 445 So.2d 304 (Ala.Civ.App.1984), construed the former version of Rule 63 as investing a successor judge, who has reviewed a transcript, with the authority to order a new trial based on substantive grounds. 608 So.2d at 343.

In this case, Judge Hare became disqualified to rule on the pending motion for a new trial when her term expired. In Birmingham Retail Center Associates, Ltd. v. Eastwood Festival Associates, 608 So.2d 340, 343 (Ala.1992), the supreme court held that the pre–1995 version of Rule 63 applied when a sitting judge was defeated in an election so that he or she was disabled from continuing to preside over the case. Based on the Committee Comments to the October 1, 1995, Amendment to present Rule 63, we conclude that the holding in Eastwood Festival Associates remains good law and that the present version of Rule 63 applies in cases in which the judge who originally decided the case has been defeated for reelection.