MICHAEL REUSCHEL
v.
SUSAN REUSCHEL
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.
The appointment of a custodian with sole authority to operate the marital business and the custodian's decision to hire separate counsel moots any potential conflict of interest arising from a law firm's prior dual representation of the husband and the business.
[1] The appointment of an independent custodian with sole authority to operate a marital business and the custodian's hiring of separate counsel may moot a potential conflict…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Reuschel is serving a thirty-year sentence for attempting to murder his wife Susan, prompting her divorce petition. The parties agreed to appo…
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 Conflict Of Interest In Legal Representation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Michael and Susan Reuschel are going through a divorce. Michael appeals the trial court’s order that purports to grant Susan’s motion to disqualify the law firm that had been hired to provide legal services to both the husband and Sapphire Dental, LLC, of which the husband is sole member. There is no dispute that Sapphire Dental is a marital asset. As it turns out, Michael is serving a thirty-year sentence for attempting to murder Susan— which of course prompted her petition for marriage dissolution— and the parties agreed to a court order appointing a custodian that would have sole authority to operate Sapphire Dental in the best interest of its members and creditors. The custodian decided to hire separate counsel, and the trial court in turn concluded that this development mooted any possible conflict of interest arising
from the firm’s representing both clients. We agree and affirm the trial court’s ultimate determination of mootness—the trial court actually did not disqualify anyone. We offer no comment on whether there in fact was a preclusive conflict that would support disqualification in the future.
AFFIRMED.
LEWIS, TANENBAUM, and LONG, JJ., concur. _____________________________