Wolfson v. Wolfson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wolfson v. Wolfson

159 So. 3d 394, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 3870, 2015 WL 1227498

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 18, 2015

DocketNo. 3D15-630

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 159 So. 3d 394 (Wolfson v. Wolfson) 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

Wolfson v. Wolfson, 159 So. 3d 394, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 3870, 2015 WL 1227498 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Candice Wolfson petitions this Court for a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial judge from presiding over the parties’ post-dissolution proceeding after the trial court denied her verified motion to disqualify. We find that the motion for disqualification was legally sufficient as the trial judge’s comments indicate that she had prejudged the case. See Barnett v. Barnett, 727 So.2d 311, 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“While it is well-settled that a judge may form mental impressions and opinions during the course of hearing evidence, he or she may not prejudge the case.”). As such, we conclude that the petitioner’s fear of partiality is reasonable, and we grant the petition. We are confident it will be unnecessary to formally issue the writ. See Van v. Unifund CCR, LLC, 154 So.3d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Kopel v. Kopel, 832 So.2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Southeast Bank v. Capua, 584 So.2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

Writ granted.

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

PER CURIAM.

Candice Wolfson petitions this Court for a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial judge from presiding over the parties’ post-dissolution proceeding after the trial court denied her verified motion to disqualify. We find that the motion for disqualification was legally sufficient as the trial judge’s comments indicate that she had prejudged the case. See Barnett v. Barnett, 727 So.2d 311, 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“While it is well-settled that a judge may form mental impressions and opinions during the course of hearing evidence, he or she may not prejudge the case.”). As such, we conclude that the petitioner’s fear of partiality is reasonable, and we grant the petition. We are confident it will be unnecessary to formally issue the writ. See Van v. Unifund CCR, LLC, 154 So.3d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Kopel v. Kopel, 832 So.2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Southeast Bank v. Capua, 584 So.2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

Writ granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 So. 3d 394, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 3870, 2015 WL 1227498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolfson-v-wolfson-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack