Bellomo v. Gagliano

792 So. 2d 1285, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12573, 2001 WL 1020297
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 7, 2001
DocketNo. 5D01-1667
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 792 So. 2d 1285 (Bellomo v. Gagliano) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bellomo v. Gagliano, 792 So. 2d 1285, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12573, 2001 WL 1020297 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION

GRIFFIN, J.

Petitioners, Maida and John Bellomo, filed a notice of appeal seeking review of an order denying their amended motion to dismiss a petition for paternity filed by Kenneth Gagliano. This court issued an order directing that the notice of appeal should be treated as a timely petition for writ of certiorari and that a proper petition and appendix should be served within ten days.

A week later, petitioners filed in this court a motion to disqualify appellate counsel for the respondent, Barbara Nolte, because petitioner, Maida Bellomo, had previously consulted with her regarding her rights and responsibilities in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage to John Bello-mo and had disclosed information to Barbara Nolte which petitioner claims could be prejudicial to her in the matter before the court.

Respondent does not dispute that the consultation occurred but objects to the disqualification on the basis that the paternity suit and the dissolution are not substantially related matters. According to the response, Maida Bellomo was not pregnant with the child in issue at the time of the consultation regarding the dissolution and the dissolution consultation did not include any discussion of a prospective pregnancy from a relationship outside the marriage. The merits of this motion appear to depend on disputed facts. Accordingly, we will stay these proceedings and relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court for a period of forty-five days and ask the trial court to hear and determine the merits of the motion to disqualify. Upon application, we will review the trial court’s decision.

SAWAYA and PALMER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

ATC Logistics Corp. v. Jackson
168 So. 3d 292 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
792 So. 2d 1285, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12573, 2001 WL 1020297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bellomo-v-gagliano-fladistctapp-2001.