Colarusso v. Colarusso, 20 So. 3d 985

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Christopher Colarusso seeks a writ of prohibition preventing the trial judge from conducting further proceedings in the petitioner’s dissolution of marriage case. “A motion to recuse or disqualify a trial judge is legally sufficient when the alleged facts would create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.” Valdes-Fauli v. Valdes-Fauli, 903 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). A review of the verified motion to disqualify demonstrates that it is legally sufficient. The judge’s decidedly negative commentary concerning his personal opinion of the petitioner’s behavior, when viewed in the context of, and at this stage of, the dissolution proceeding, is sufficient to create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear that he would not receive a fair hearing before this judge. See Miami Dade College v. Tumberry Inv., Inc., 979 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Valdes-Fauli, 903 So.2d at 214; Kopel v. Kopel, 832 So.2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Doe, 767 So.2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Tindle v. Tindle, 761 So.2d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Accordingly, we grant the petition. We are certain that it will be unnecessary to issue a formal writ.

Petition granted.

Case Details

Case Name: Colarusso v. Colarusso

Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida

Date Published: Oct 21, 2009

Citations: 20 So. 3d 985; 2009 WL 3365264; 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 15803; 3D09-1633

Docket Number: 3D09-1633

Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.