SUSAN M. BARNETT, PETITIONER,
v.
LARRY ROGER BARNETT, 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.
Susan Barnett challenged a trial judge's denial of her motion to disqualify him in a family law matter, alleging the judge made statements suggesting he had prejudged the custody issue. The Florida appellate court granted her petition for writ of prohibition, finding the judge's comments could reasonably be interpreted as crossing the line from forming mental impressions to prejudging the case.
The judge's comment could reasonably be interpreted as indicating the judge had prejudged the custody issue before the conclusion of trial, which constitutes legally sufficient grounds for disqualification. The petition for writ of prohibition was granted.
[1] A judge's comment to counsel suggesting a party negotiate for more favorable terms than the court might otherwise award can create a well-grounded fear of bias in a reaso…
[2] A judge may form mental impressions and opinions during the course of hearing evidence, but may not prejudge the case.
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“While it is well-settled that a judge may form mental impressions and opinions during the course of hearing evidence, he or she may not prejudge the case.”
Establishes the key legal principle distinguishing permissible judge conduct from grounds for disqualification
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a final hearing in a postjudgment dissolution action concerning child custody, visitation, child support, and attorney's fees, the trial judge …
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 Prejudgment Of Case cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Susan Barnett challenges the trial court’s order denying her motion to disqualify the trial judge filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.160. By prior order we granted Ms. Barnett’s petition for writ of prohibition and indicated that this opinion would follow.
This original proceeding arose from a final hearing in a postjudgment dissolution action to determine child custody, visitation, child support, and attorney’s fees. Ms. Barnett alleges that at the close of the evidence1 but before final arguments were heard, the trial judge told her counsel that her client should attempt to negotiate for more visitation than she would otherwise receive if the trial court made the decision. Barnett filed a sworn motion to disqualify the trial judge stating that because of the above statement she did not feel that the judge could preside impartially over closing arguments. She reasoned that the judge’s comment indicated her predisposition to award custody to the former husband. The trial judge denied this motion as legally insufficient. The technical requisites of the rule were met by the motion and affidavit.2 The only question remaining is whether, taken as true, the facts constitute legally sufficient grounds for disqualification. The standard to apply in making this determination is whether a reasonable person faced with those facts would develop a well-grounded fear that he or she would not receive a fair hearing in front of that judge. See Rucks v. State, 692 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
While it is well-settled that a judge may form mental impressions and opinions during the course of hearing evidence, he or she may not prejudge the case. See Wargo v. Wargo, 669 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); LeBruno Aluminum Co., Inc. v. Lane, 436 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
The comment in this case could reasonably be interpreted to mean that the judge had crossed that line from forming mental impressions to prejudging the issue of custody prior to the conclusion of the trial.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of prohibition is granted.
BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and SALCINES, JJ„ Concur. . In addition to testimony, Ms. Barnett alleges that transcripts from numerous other proceedings before different judges had been entered into evidence but presumably not yet reviewed by the trial judge.
. Mr. Barnett’s argument that the motion is legally insufficient because it is based on hearsay is without merit. Under the current rule, the motion need only be sworn to by the party signing it. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin 2.160(c). There is no requirement that the party have personal knowledge of the facts alleged nor that the motion be accompanied by sworn affidavits of persons with such knowledge.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Broward Cnty., 810 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…[*1059] judge cannot pass upon the truth of the allegations of fact. Hayslip v. Douglas, 400 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.160(f). It is sufficient that the allegations are neither frivolous nor fanciful. Barnett v. Barnett, 727 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Scholz v. Hauser, 657 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Countervailing evidence is not admissible. Cave v. State, 660 So. 2d 705(Fla.1995). The parties rely on the related cases of Brake v. Murphy, 693 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997…
-
Valdes-Fauli v. Gonzalo F. Valdes-Fauli, 903 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…)(conviction reversed because of admonishment to counsel for impropriety in presence of jury); Peters v. State, 626 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)(reversing contempt conviction for uttering expletive in open court). But cf. also Barnett v. Barnett, 727 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)(trial judge disqualified for informing counsel in bench trial after all the evidence that both clients “should attempt to negotiate for more visitation than she would otherwise receive if the trial court made the decision”), revie…
-
Kopel v. Bernardo Kopel, 832 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…(conviction reversed because of admonishment to counsel for impropriety in presence of jury); Peters v. State, 626 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (reversing contempt conviction for uttering expletive in open court). But cf. also Barnett v. Barnett, 727 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (trial judge disqualified for informing counsel in bench trial after all the evidence that both clients “should attempt to negotiate for more visitation than she would otherwise receive if the trial court made the decision”), revi…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wargo v. Bettina Li Belles Wargo and Julie Koenig, 669 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Robbyn Rucks v. State, 692 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- LeBRUNO Aluminum Co., Inc. v. Lane, 436 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)