Berry v. Berry

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Berry v. Berry

139 So. 3d 508, 2014 WL 2589210, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8817

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 10, 2014

DocketNo. 1D14-0964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 So. 3d 508 (Berry v. Berry) 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

Berry v. Berry, 139 So. 3d 508, 2014 WL 2589210, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8817 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

While we ascribe absolutely no improper motive to the trial judge’s actions, we find that the ex parte conference was not authorized under the terms of Canon 3B(7) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the husband has failed to identify any other applicable exception to the general rule that a judge shall not permit or consider ex parte communications concerning a pending proceeding. We further conclude that the fact that this ex parte conference occurred constituted a legally sufficient basis for petitioner’s motion for disqualification. See generally Rose v. State, 601 So.2d 1181 (Fla.1992). Accordingly, the petition for writ of prohibition is granted. On remand, a new judge shall be assigned to hear further proceedings in this matter.

WOLF, PADOVANO, and RAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

While we ascribe absolutely no improper motive to the trial judge’s actions, we find that the ex parte conference was not authorized under the terms of Canon 3B(7) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the husband has failed to identify any other applicable exception to the general rule that a judge shall not permit or consider ex parte communications concerning a pending proceeding. We further conclude that the fact that this ex parte conference occurred constituted a legally sufficient basis for petitioner’s motion for disqualification. See generally Rose v. State, 601 So.2d 1181 (Fla.1992). Accordingly, the petition for writ of prohibition is granted. On remand, a new judge shall be assigned to hear further proceedings in this matter.

WOLF, PADOVANO, and RAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 So. 3d 508, 2014 WL 2589210, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berry-v-berry-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack