MICHELLE SAENZ v. ROBERTO SANCHEZ III

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 1, 2023
Docket22-1688
StatusPublished

This text of MICHELLE SAENZ v. ROBERTO SANCHEZ III (MICHELLE SAENZ v. ROBERTO SANCHEZ III) 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
MICHELLE SAENZ v. ROBERTO SANCHEZ III, (Fla. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed February 1, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1688 Lower Tribunal No. 19-11545 ________________

Michelle Saenz, Petitioner,

vs.

Roberto Sanchez, III, Respondent.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition.

Michelle Saenz, in proper person.

Nancy A. Hass, P.A., and Nancy A. Hass (Fort Lauderdale), for respondent.

Before SCALES, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Michelle Saenz petitions this Court for a writ of prohibition following the trial court's denial of her motion for disqualification. The sworn motion filed

below alleged, among other things, that the trial court ordered relief that was

not sought by either party and ordered the guardian ad litem and respondent

to report acts of two of the parties’ minor children to the police. We conclude

the motion to disqualify was legally sufficient and grant the petition.

The standard of review of a trial court’s determination on a motion to

disqualify is de novo. Rodriguez v. Halsall, No. 3D22-2056, 2023 WL 27889,

at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 4, 2023). “To be legally sufficient, a motion to

disqualify must demonstrate some actual bias or prejudice so as to create a

reasonable fear that a fair trial cannot be had.” Hollywood Park Apartments

West, LLC v. City of Hollywood, Florida, No. 4D22-1523, 2023 WL 151312,

at *1 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 11, 2023) (quoting Downs v. Moore, 801 So. 2d 906,

915 (Fla. 2001) (internal quotation omitted)).

Treating the allegations of fact contained in the motion to disqualify as

true, as we must, we conclude that disqualification is warranted. See

Hollywood Park Apartments West, LLC, 2023 WL 151312; Wade v. Wade,

123 So. 3d 697, 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Accordingly, we grant the petition.

We withhold formal issuance of the writ, confident that the trial judge will

promptly issue an order of disqualification.

Petition granted; cause remanded; writ issuance withheld.

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

Related

Downs v. Moore
801 So. 2d 906 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2001)
Wade v. Wade
123 So. 3d 697 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
MICHELLE SAENZ v. ROBERTO SANCHEZ III, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michelle-saenz-v-roberto-sanchez-iii-fladistctapp-2023.