Isan v. Isan
209 So. 3d 40
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Phillip B. Isan (petitioner) filed a petition for writ of prohibition to disqualify Judge Robert A. Wohn from presiding over his marital dissolution case against Jill R. Isan (respondent).
- Petitioner alleged the judge engaged in ex parte communications with Respondent on several occasions before entry of a Final Judgment.
- The Final Judgment was alleged to be nearly identical to Respondent’s proposed final judgment, including an award of attorney’s fees.
- Petitioner moved to disqualify the judge; the motion was challenged on legal sufficiency and timeliness grounds under Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330 and section 38.10.
- The Fifth District considered whether the motion, accepted as true, would induce a reasonably prudent person to fear not receiving a fair and impartial hearing.
- The court granted the writ of prohibition and disqualified Judge Wohn from further participation in the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the disqualification motion was timely | Isan argued motion was filed within the rule’s reasonable time | Respondent implicitly argued timeliness not an obstacle | Court accepted motion as timely under Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(e) |
| Whether alleged ex parte communications require disqualification | Isan argued ex parte contacts and judgment mirroring respondent’s proposal create well‑founded fear of bias | Respondent implicitly denied sufficiency or disputed facts | Court held allegations legally sufficient to create a reasonable fear of unfairness |
| Whether the trial judge should decide factual truth of allegations | Isan argued judge must only assess legal sufficiency, not truth | Respondent urged court to consider veracity | Court applied rule that judge reviews only legal sufficiency, accepting allegations as true |
| Whether entry of a judgment mirroring a litigant’s proposed order supports disqualification | Isan argued substantial similarity, including fees, supports inference of one‑sided contact | Respondent would argue similarity alone insufficient without more | Court found the combination of alleged ex parte contacts and near‑identical judgment sufficient to require disqualification |
Key Cases Cited
- MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 1990) (standard for legal sufficiency of disqualification motion)
- Martin v. State, 804 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (prohibition review for denials of disqualification)
- Krawczuk v. State, 92 So. 3d 195 (Fla. 2012) (procedural governance of disqualification motions)
- Parker v. State, 3 So. 3d 974 (Fla. 2009) (relation of rule and statute governing disqualification)
- Chace v. Loisel, 170 So. 3d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (motion legally sufficient if a reasonably prudent person would fear not receiving a fair trial)
- Rose v. State, 601 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1992) (strong admonition against one‑sided ex parte communications)
- Klapper‑Barrett v. Nurell, 742 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (public policy warning against ex parte contacts)
- Livingston v. State, 441 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1983) (standard that legal sufficiency turns on reasonable‑person fear)