159 So. 3d 1015
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- May 12, 2014, initial dissolution order; trial court reserved jurisdiction on financial issues.
- October 27, 2014, supplemental final judgment issued in the dissolution case.
- Former husband moved to disqualify the trial judge under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330(f).
- Motion claimed bias based on the supplemental judgment mirroring wife’s proposed order and credibility rulings against the husband’s witnesses.
- Later allegations asserted the judge made comments to the husband’s CPA suggesting bias; petitioner claimed these showed lack of impartiality.
- Court denied petition, holding the motion legally insufficient and bias not shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion to disqualify states a legally sufficient bias claim. | Husband argues the judge biased by mirroring wife’s proposal and discrediting the husband’s witness. | Judge denies bias; adverse rulings do not establish bias, and comments do not show partiality. | petition denied; bias not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So.2d 1332 (Fla.1990) (bias standard for disqualification analysis)
- Correll v. State, 698 So.2d 522 (Fla.1995) (adverse rulings alone not enough to show bias)
- Jackson v. State, 599 So.2d 103 (Fla.1992) (adverse rulings insufficient to show bias)
- Livingston v. State, 441 So.2d 1083 (Fla.1983) (test for reasonable fear of lack of fair trial)