Cancel v. Montanez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cancel v. Montanez

249 So. 3d 796

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 1, 2018

DocketCase No. 5D18-2355

StatusPublished

This text of 249 So. 3d 796 (Cancel v. Montanez) 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

Cancel v. Montanez, 249 So. 3d 796 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Alexandra A. Cancel petitions this Court for a writ of prohibition to review the denial of her motion to disqualify the Honorable Luis F. Calderon from presiding over her child relocation case against Roberto Montanez. We grant the petition.

We review trial court orders denying motions to disqualify trial judges by prohibition. Isan v. Isan, 209 So.3d 40, 41 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). Motions to disqualify are governed procedurally by Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330. See Wall v. State, 238 So.3d 127, 142 (Fla. 2018) ; Krawczuk v. State, 92 So.3d 195, 200 (Fla. 2012). Specifically, the motion to disqualify "shall be filed within a reasonable time not to exceed 10 days after discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for the motion and shall be promptly presented to the court for an immediate ruling." Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(e). Upon receiving the motion, the judge shall determine only the legal sufficiency of the motion without passing on the truth of the facts alleged. Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(f). The test for determining the legal sufficiency of a motion for disqualification is whether "the facts alleged (which must be taken as true) would prompt a reasonably prudent person to fear that he could not get a fair and impartial trial." Hayslip v. Douglas, 400 So.2d 553, 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Here, the facts presented in the affidavit, which we must presume to be true, are sufficient to prompt Cancel to fear that she cannot get a fair hearing.

Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of prohibition, quash the order denying the motion for recusal, and remand this case for assignment to a different trial judge.

PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.

PALMER, ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Alexandra A. Cancel petitions this Court for a writ of prohibition to review the denial of her motion to disqualify the Honorable Luis F. Calderon from presiding over her child relocation case against Roberto Montanez. We grant the petition.

We review trial court orders denying motions to disqualify trial judges by prohibition. Isan v. Isan, 209 So.3d 40, 41 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). Motions to disqualify are governed procedurally by Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330. See Wall v. State, 238 So.3d 127, 142 (Fla. 2018) ; Krawczuk v. State, 92 So.3d 195, 200 (Fla. 2012). Specifically, the motion to disqualify "shall be filed within a reasonable time not to exceed 10 days after discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for the motion and shall be promptly presented to the court for an immediate ruling." Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(e). Upon receiving the motion, the judge shall determine only the legal sufficiency of the motion without passing on the truth of the facts alleged. Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(f). The test for determining the legal sufficiency of a motion for disqualification is whether "the facts alleged (which must be taken as true) would prompt a reasonably prudent person to fear that he could not get a fair and impartial trial." Hayslip v. Douglas, 400 So.2d 553, 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Here, the facts presented in the affidavit, which we must presume to be true, are sufficient to prompt Cancel to fear that she cannot get a fair hearing.

Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of prohibition, quash the order denying the motion for recusal, and remand this case for assignment to a different trial judge.

PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.

PALMER, ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 So. 3d 796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cancel-v-montanez-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack