Sergio Alberto Castillo v. Marlen Castillo (Corrected)

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sergio Alberto Castillo v. Marlen Castillo (Corrected)

150 So. 3d 1255, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18843, 2014 WL 6520801

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 19, 2014

Docket4D14-2522

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 150 So. 3d 1255 (Sergio Alberto Castillo v. Marlen Castillo (Corrected)) 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

Sergio Alberto Castillo v. Marlen Castillo (Corrected), 150 So. 3d 1255, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18843, 2014 WL 6520801 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

CORRECTED OPINION

PER CURIAM.

We grant petitioner’s petition for writ of prohibition, based on his sworn allegation that the trial court failed to allow him to present argument or additional evidence prior to ruling on respondent’s motion for temporary support in this post-dissolution proceeding. We find that this allegation is sufficient to place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair hearing on his legal claims. See Keating v. State, 110 So.3d 538, 539-40 (Fla. 4th DCA *1256 2013); Wade v. Wade, 123 So.3d 697, 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). We direct this case to be reassigned to a successor judge. Swida v. Raventos, 872 So.2d 413, 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). We further vacate the trial court’s order granting respondent’s May 14, 2014 motion for temporary relief and attorney’s fees, as that order was entered subsequent to petitioner’s motion to disqualify the trial judge. Peterson v. Asklipious, 833 So.2d 262, 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

Petition for writ of prohibition granted.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

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

CORRECTED OPINION

PER CURIAM.

We grant petitioner’s petition for writ of prohibition, based on his sworn allegation that the trial court failed to allow him to present argument or additional evidence prior to ruling on respondent’s motion for temporary support in this post-dissolution proceeding. We find that this allegation is sufficient to place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair hearing on his legal claims. See Keating v. State, 110 So.3d 538, 539-40 (Fla. 4th DCA *1256 2013); Wade v. Wade, 123 So.3d 697, 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). We direct this case to be reassigned to a successor judge. Swida v. Raventos, 872 So.2d 413, 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). We further vacate the trial court’s order granting respondent’s May 14, 2014 motion for temporary relief and attorney’s fees, as that order was entered subsequent to petitioner’s motion to disqualify the trial judge. Peterson v. Asklipious, 833 So.2d 262, 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

Petition for writ of prohibition granted.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 So. 3d 1255, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18843, 2014 WL 6520801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sergio-alberto-castillo-v-marlen-castillo-corrected-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack