MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC. AND ALAN WEISELBERG, PETITIONERS,
v.
HON. RHEA PINCUS GROSSMAN, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Petitioners sought a writ of prohibition to disqualify a trial judge from presiding over their civil case. The appellate court granted the petition because the judge, by extensively refuting allegations of prejudice in her ten-page order, exceeded the proper scope of judicial inquiry and created grounds for her own disqualification.
Yes. A judge who exceeds the proper scope of inquiry by attempting to refute charges of partiality rather than limiting her review to legal sufficiency alone has established grounds for disqualification and created an intolerable adversary atmosphere with the litigant.
[1] A judge who attempts to refute charges of prejudice against counsel, rather than merely determining the legal sufficiency of a disqualification motion, exceeds the proper…
[2] A judge presented with a motion for disqualification shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged nor adjudicate the question of disqualification.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a judge who is presented with a motion for his disqualification 'shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged nor adjudicate the question of disqualification.'”
Establishes the foundational rule limiting a judge's authority when reviewing disqualification motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceManagement Corporation of America, Inc. and Alan Weiselberg filed a motion to disqualify the trial judge, Judge Rhea Pincus Grossman, in a civil actio…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prejudice Of Judge cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioners seek a writ of prohibition 1 to prevent the respondent from continuing to exercise jurisdiction as trial judge in a civil action now pending in the Dade County Circuit Court styled Management Corporation of America, Inc. and Alan Weiselberg v. Ted Weiselberg, Case No. 80-18018 CA (14). We grant the relief sought for the reasons which follow.
We deem it unnecessary to detail the allegations made in the motion for disqualification and accompanying affidavits or to decide whether the respondent ruled correctly when she denied the motion as legally insufficient. Our ruling is predicated on the singular fact, so obviously reflected in the respondent’s ten-page order denying the motion (attached to which are twenty-two exhibits consisting of hundreds of pages), that the respondent went to great lengths to refute the charge that she was prejudiced against counsel for the petitioners. This effort by the respondent, as understandable as it may have been, makes her disqualified to further preside in the case below.
As the Supreme Court stated in Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla.1978):
“Regardless of whether respondent ruled correctly in denying the motion for disqualification as legally insufficient, our rules clearly provide, and we have repeatedly held, that a judge who is presented with a motion for his disquali-ficátion ‘shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged nor adjudicate the question of disqualification.’ Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.230(d); see, e. g., Dickenson v. Parks, 104 Fla. 577, 140 So. 459 (1932); Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42, 115 So. 519 (1928); Theo Hirsch Co. v. McDonald Furniture Co., 94 Fla. 185, 114 So. 517 (1927). When a judge has looked beyond the mere legal sufficiency of a suggestion of prejudice and attempted to refute the charges of partiality, he has then exceeded the proper scope of his inquiry and on that basis alone established grounds for his disqualification. Our disqualification rule, which limits the trial judge to a bare determina tion of legal sufficiency, was expressly designed to prevent what occurred in this case — the creation of ‘an intolerable adversary atmosphere’ between the trial judge and the litigant. See Department of Revenue v. Golder, 322 So. 2d 1, 7 (Fla.1975) (On Reconsideration).” (emphasis supplied).
Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of prohibition. We are confident that it is unnecessary for us to issue the writ, and we therefore remand the cause to the Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. The petitioners alternatively sought the issuance of a writ of certiorari. On December 23, 1980, we issued an order determining that the proceedings be by way of certiorari. Upon further consideration, after oral argument of this cause, we have decided that the remedy of prohibition is proper.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Breakstone v. Honorable Mary Ann MacKENZIE, 561 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…v.P. 1.432(d); Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla.1978); Stimpson Computing Scale Co. v. Knuck, 508 So. 2d 482, 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); State ex rel. Allen v. Testa, 414 So. 2d 38, 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Management Corp. of America v. Grossman, 396 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The second motion for disqualification, like the first, should have been granted. In the companion case, petitioner Super Kids called up its motion for disqualification for hearing in the trial court. The trial judge conceded, i…
-
Gieseke v. The Honorable Estella May Moriarty, 471 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…sposing of this matter because in filing her own response to the rule to show cause why relief should not be granted, the trial court undertook to controvert each of the asserted grounds for recusal. In Management Corporation of America v. Grossman, 396 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), the court cited Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla.1978) for the proposition that “[w]hen a judge has looked beyond the mere legal sufficiency of a suggestion of prejudice and attempted to refute the charges of partiality, h…
-
Yesbick v. State, 408 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…the motion and affidavits. It is axiomatic that a trial judge may not pass upon the truth of the facts alleged nor adjudicate the question of disqualification. Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440 (Fla.1978); Management Corp. of America, Inc. v. Grossman, 396 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). That rule was not violated here; the trial judge passed on the sufficiency of the motion for disqualification — he did not pass on its merits. Appellant next questions the State’s ad-duction of evidence that appellant had sold a…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Sanford Freed, 366 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1978)
- Emelio Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42 (Fla. 1928)
- Vazquez v. Ailyn M. Rebaza Smith (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- Dickenson v. Parks, 104 Fla. 577 (Fla. 1932)
- Theo. Hirsch Co. v. McDonald Furniture Co., 94 Fla. 185 (Fla. 1927)
- Dep't OF Revenue of the State of Fla. v. Golder, 322 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1975)