PATRICIA MERINO

v.

RICHARD POWELL

COHEN, J.

Patricia Merino (“Wife”) seeks a writ of prohibition after the trial court denied her motion for disqualification of the trial judge. Her petition claims that Judge John Beamer’s questioning at the hearing on her latest motion to continue indicated bias in favor of Richard Powell (“Husband”), placing her in fear that she will not receive a fair trial. Wife also asserts that Judge Beamer violated her due process rights by denying that motion to continue and failing to grant her request for temporary attorney’s fees. For the reasons discussed below, we deny her petition.

Wife’s claim of judicial bias is meritless, warranting only a brief

discussion. Her petition cherry picks portions of the transcript yet fails to acknowledge that the excerpts are taken out of order. Nor does she include additional discussion that provides necessary context for the trial court’s questioning.

Even if Wife had not put forth such an inaccurate representation of the exchanges at the hearing, the language upon which she relies does not, as she suggests, show that Judge Beamer "interject[ed] himself into the proceedings and act[ed] as an advocate for . . . Husband,” or that he “acted . . . as Wife’s adversary.” In actuality, the portions of the transcript simply reflect questioning by the trial court as to the claims raised in her motion for continuance.

The trial court’s remarks do not form the basis for a wellfounded fear that Wife cannot receive a fair trial or hearing before Judge Beamer, or that he is biased or prejudiced against her or her attorney. See Gore v. State, 964 So. 2d 1257, 1268 (Fla. 2007) (citing Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(d)). 2 Likewise, we reject Wife’s claim that the denial of her latest motion to continue violated her due process rights. This case has been pending for over six years and is so far beyond the Florida Supreme Court’s mandated time frame that the current judge was not even on the bench when the case was initially filed. 1 Over the course of the proceedings, Wife has been represented by a series of attorneys and has also proceeded pro se at various times. Wife’s fourth and current counsel, Mr. Jordan Gerber, filed a notice of appearance shortly before one of the pretrial conferences. 2 His notice of appearance was followed by four motions to continue.

The trial court allowed Wife to amend her counter-petition, and as such, the case was removed from the trial docket, effectively granting a continuance. Trial was rescheduled to occur in April 2021. The day before the pretrial conference on the new trial date, Wife filed another motion for continuance.

The trial court moved the trial date from April to May 2021. Wife 1 See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.250 (stating that most contested domestic relations cases should be completed within 180 days after filing). 2 Wife’s third attorney filed a notice of appearance immediately before a November 2019 pretrial conference and secured a continuance from January 2020 until April 2020. That lawyer withdrew almost immediately after having secured the continuance. 3 filed yet another motion for continuance. It was from the hearing on this motion that Wife bases her petition for writ of prohibition. 3 In our view, Judge Beamer has been extraordinarily accommodating under the circumstances. This case, involving only the equitable distribution of the parties’ assets and Wife’s claim for alimony, has languished in the system for over six-and-a-half years, contrary to the aforementioned supreme court time frame. When a lawyer steps into a case in this posture, he or she should expect to proceed to trial immediately. If that is unacceptable, he or she should not take the case. To claim a violation of due process under such circumstances, without any supporting authority, is frivolous at best. 4 See Preferred Gov’t Ins. Tr. v. Aelion, 307 So. 3d 129, 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (defining frivolous as “a claim that presents no justiciable question and is so devoid of merit on the face of the record that there is little prospect it will ever succeed.” (citations and internal quotations omitted)).

PETITION DENIED.

EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur. 3 Despite its initial denial, the trial court subsequently granted Wife’s motion for continuance and moved the trial date to August 2021, resulting in the fourth time trial has been continued to accommodate Wife. 4 Wife’s assertion that her due process rights were violated by the failure to grant her temporary attorney’s fees is equally without merit. 4