STEPHEN LOUIS FOLEY, PETITIONER,
v.
THE HONORABLE J. LEONARD FLEET, CIRCUIT JUDGE OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, ET AL., 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.
A former husband sought a writ of prohibition to disqualify a trial judge in a post-dissolution action after learning the judge's campaign was being coordinated by an associate of opposing counsel's law firm. The court denied the writ because the disqualification motion was filed 30 days after discovery of the grounds, exceeding the 10-day deadline mandated by Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.160(e).
The court held that the motion to disqualify was untimely under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.160(e), which requires that such a motion be filed within 10 days after discovery of the grounds for disqualification. Therefore, the writ of prohibition was properly denied.
[1] A motion to disqualify a judge must be filed within 10 days after the grounds for disqualification are made known to the movant.
[2] The 10-day time limit for filing a motion to disqualify a judge applies to motions filed after January 1, 1993.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 motion to disqualify shall be made within a reasonable time not to exceed 10 days after discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for the motion and shall be promptly presented to the court for an immediate ruling.”
Establishes the mandatory 10-day deadline for filing disqualification motions under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.160(e).
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Foley was a former husband in a post-dissolution action before Judge Fleet. On June 7, 1994, opposing counsel informed Foley's attorney tha…
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 Reasonable Time For Filing Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition because the trial judge refused to disqualify himself in this post-dissolution action. We deny the writ because the motion for disqualification was not filed within 10 days after the grounds for disqualification were made known to petitioner as is required by Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.160(e) (1994). Petitioner is a former husband in a post-dissolution action pending before Judge Fleet. Former wife’s lawyer, a member of the Ruden, Barnett law firm, advised husband’s lawyer on June 7, 1994, that his law partner was Judge Fleet’s campaign coordinator for re-election. Husband’s counsel responded on June 9, 1994, stating that his client was away for a few days and he would discuss it with him upon his return.
Husband’s lawyer wrote wife’s lawyer on June 16, 1994, advising that he and his client felt that Ruden, Barnett had a conflict of interest and asked whether Ruden, Barnett would voluntarily withdraw from the ease. Wife’s counsel responded on June 17, 1994 refusing to withdraw, but advising that if husband moved to recuse “in an appropriate way” Judge Fleet would grant the motion. On June 20, 1994 Judge Fleet wrote husband’s lawyer advising that Sam Fields of Ruden, Barnett was coordinating his campaign for re-election.
Husband moved to disqualify Judge Fleet on July 7, 1994, the motion was denied as being legally insufficient, and husband seeks prohibition. Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.160, entitled “Disqualification of Trial Judges”, provides, in subsection (e):
A motion to disqualify shall be made within a reasonable time not to exceed 10 days after discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for the motion and shall be promptly presented to the court for an immediate ruling.
The above rule became effective January 1, 1993. The Florida Bar re: Amendment to Fla. Rules of Judicial Administration, 609 So. 2d 465 (Fla.1992). Prior to its adoption, Fla.R.Civ. 1.432(e) provided that a motion to disqualify had to be made within a “reasonable time” after discovery of the grounds; however, that rule was repealed when the new rule of judicial administration became effective. We conclude that the motion to disqualify in the present case, filed approximately 30 days after the grounds for disqualification became known to petitioner, was untimely. See also Dura-Stress, Inc. v. Law, 634 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
We therefore deny prohibition.
DELL, C.J., and STONE J., concur. ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
We grant petitioner’s motion for clarification and hereby modify the order of October 5, 1994, to reflect that the award of attorney’s fees and costs is contingent upon respondent being the prevailing party within the meaning of Article XXVI of the Settlement Agreement.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shedrick McGAULEY v. The Hon. Barry E. Goldstein, 653 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…rior case, and he was appointed to represent him in the current cases in December 1994. He did not raise the disqualification issue until February 1995. We conclude that even if meritorious, the motion to disqualify was too late. See Foley v. Fleet, 644 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). PROHIBITION DENIED. GUNTHER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.…
-
Guzman & Co. v. British Realty & Mortg. Corp., 699 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…by the judge were made on June 26, 1997. The motion to disqualify was filed on July 18, 1997, 22 days after “discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for the motion.” McGauley v. Goldstein, 653 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Foley v. Fleet, 644 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Parnell v. State, 627 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). The Amended Petition for Writ of Prohibition is denied.…
-
Gumberg v. Gumberg, 755 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…fication timeliness standard as are motions to recuse a judge, see Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.160(e), we think that the motion must still be made within a reasonable time of discovering the reason for the conflict. Cf. Foley v. Fleet, 644 So. 2d 551, 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Moreover, her attorney waived any right to challenge the evaluator when, with knowledge of the alleged bias, he did not seek disqualification. The record reflects that the evaluator’s report was drafted and given to counsel…
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 Fla. Bar re: Amendment to Fla. Rules of Jud. Admin., 609 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1992)
- Dura-Stress, Inc. v. Honorable William G. LAW, Jr., 634 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)