Raphael v. Raphael

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Raphael v. Raphael

118 So. 3d 834, 2013 WL 4522515, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 9550

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 24, 2013

DocketNo. 5D13-1304

StatusPublished

This text of 118 So. 3d 834 (Raphael v. Raphael) 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

Raphael v. Raphael, 118 So. 3d 834, 2013 WL 4522515, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 9550 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Karen Mary Raphael seeks a writ of prohibition after the Honorable Dennis Craig denied her motion to disqualify him from further proceedings in Ms. Raphael’s dissolution of marriage case.

Ms. Raphael’s petition sets forth that there is an obvious and apparent personal bias by Judge Craig against Mr. Hartley, her attorney, that dates to well before Judge Craig took the bench. Judge Craig has previously granted two motions to disqualify in unrelated cases in which Mr. Hartley was an attorney of record. In the instant case, however, Judge Craig denied the motion to disqualify as being untimely and legally insufficient. Suffice it to say, we find that the motion was timely filed within ten days of Mr. Hartley discovering that Judge Craig was assigned to this case.

A judge’s antipathy or hostility toward a party’s counsel can provide grounds for [835]*835disqualification. See Livingston v. State, 441 So.2d 1083, 1087 (Fla.1983); Hayslip v. Douglas, 400 So.2d 553, 556-57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Here, the petition clearly sets forth that there is hostility between Judge Craig and Mr. Hartley. In light of Judge Craig’s prior orders disqualifying himself in two other cases where Mr. Hartley was an attorney of record, Judge Craig should have likewise granted Ms. Raphael’s motion to disqualify. As a result, we grant the writ of prohibition, and Judge Craig is disqualified from hearing this case.

PETITION GRANTED.

PALMER, LAWSON and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Karen Mary Raphael seeks a writ of prohibition after the Honorable Dennis Craig denied her motion to disqualify him from further proceedings in Ms. Raphael’s dissolution of marriage case.

Ms. Raphael’s petition sets forth that there is an obvious and apparent personal bias by Judge Craig against Mr. Hartley, her attorney, that dates to well before Judge Craig took the bench. Judge Craig has previously granted two motions to disqualify in unrelated cases in which Mr. Hartley was an attorney of record. In the instant case, however, Judge Craig denied the motion to disqualify as being untimely and legally insufficient. Suffice it to say, we find that the motion was timely filed within ten days of Mr. Hartley discovering that Judge Craig was assigned to this case.

A judge’s antipathy or hostility toward a party’s counsel can provide grounds for [835]*835disqualification. See Livingston v. State, 441 So.2d 1083, 1087 (Fla.1983); Hayslip v. Douglas, 400 So.2d 553, 556-57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Here, the petition clearly sets forth that there is hostility between Judge Craig and Mr. Hartley. In light of Judge Craig’s prior orders disqualifying himself in two other cases where Mr. Hartley was an attorney of record, Judge Craig should have likewise granted Ms. Raphael’s motion to disqualify. As a result, we grant the writ of prohibition, and Judge Craig is disqualified from hearing this case.

PETITION GRANTED.

PALMER, LAWSON and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 So. 3d 834, 2013 WL 4522515, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 9550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raphael-v-raphael-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack