SAMUEL D. ROSEN,
v.
TIFFANY OF BAL HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.,
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.
Samuel Rosen sought a writ of prohibition to disqualify a trial judge after the trial court denied his fourth motion to disqualify. The appellate court granted the petition not on the merits of the disqualification motion itself, but because the trial judge personally filed a response to the prohibition petition that created an adversarial atmosphere and an independent basis for disqualification.
The court grants the petition for writ of prohibition and remands for reassignment of the action. The trial judge's personal filing of a response that controverted the factual allegations in the disqualification motion created an adversarial atmosphere and an independent basis for disqualification, warranting the issuance of the writ.
[1] A trial judge's personal response to a petition for writ of prohibition, which attempts to refute factual allegations supporting a motion to disqualify, creates an advers…
[2] A trial judge should remain silent and allow the opposing party to respond to a petition for writ of prohibition.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the trial judge created an adversarial atmosphere and an independent basis for disqualification”
Establishes the court's reasoning for granting the petition—the judge's personal response itself became disqualifying
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRosen filed a fourth motion to disqualify the trial judge in the underlying case. The trial court denied this motion. Rosen then sought a writ of proh…
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 Legal Sufficiency Of Motion To Disqualify cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Samuel Rosen seeks our issuance of a writ of prohibition following the trial court’s order denying Rosen’s fourth motion to disqualify the trial judge in the lower court case. Were we to reach the merits, we might well deny the petition and conclude that the trial court properly denied the motion to disqualify as legally insufficient.
Instead, however, we are constrained to grant this petition. After we issued an order directing a response to the petition, the trial judge personally1 filed a response which took issue with, and purported to refute, factual allegations in the underlying motion to disqualify. In doing so, the trial judge created an adversarial atmosphere and an independent basis for disqualification. See Gieseke v. Moriarty, 471 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (granting prohibition where trial judge, in filing her own response to the Fourth District’s order to show cause why relief should not be granted, undertook to controvert the asserted grounds for disqualification).
We grant the petition and remand for reassignment of the action below.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ellis v. The Honorable Patti Englander Henning, 678 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- C.J. v. State, 471 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Masten v. State, 159 So. 3d 996 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- In re the Receivership OF Guar. Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. State, 678 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)