BRUNER SCOTT STOCKSTILL, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY ANN STOCKSTILL, APPELLEE
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.
In a divorce case, the trial judge's extensive questioning and cross-examination of the husband and his mother demonstrated bias favoring the wife. Although the husband's written motion to disqualify the judge was filed slightly beyond ten days, the appellate court held that the ten-day filing requirement does not apply to motions based on grounds discovered during trial, and reversed for a new trial before a different judge.
The ten-day filing requirement in Rule 2.160(e), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., applies only to motions to disqualify based on grounds discovered before or after trial, not to those based on grounds discovered during trial. The written motion to disqualify was filed within a reasonable time and was subject to appellate consideration.
[1] A judge acts improperly by extensively questioning a party or personally cross-examining a witness in an effort to discredit them.
[2] A judge's actions in questioning a party or witness can constitute bias, requiring recusal.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“it does not excuse the judge from, in the words of appellant's lawyer, "acting as one of the wife's lawyers."”
Establishes that the judge's extensive questioning and cross-examination constituted judicial bias favoring one party.
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 divorce trial, the trial judge engaged in extensive questioning of the husband and personally cross-examined the husband's mother in an effor…
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 Interpretation Of Court Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
We understand the frustration felt by the trial judge caused by the husband’s amateurish tangled web of deception. But be that as it may, it does not excuse the judge from, in the words of appellant’s lawyer, “acting as one of the wife’s lawyers.” We agree that the judge went beyond the pale in her extensive questioning of the husband and in her personal cross-examination of the husband’s mother in an effort to discredit her. When the judge acts as the attorney for either party, a “lawyer dream team” takes on a new meaning.
The defense attorney moved the judge, because of her obvious bias, to re-cuse herself on three occasions and the motions were thrice denied. Following the trial, but slightly beyond ten days because of the Christmas season, a written motion was filed. The wife herein contends that because the written motion was not filed within ten days as required by Rule 2.160(e), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., the husband can receive no relief. This rule provides:
Time. 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. Any motion for disqualification made during a trial must be based on facts discovered during trial and may be stated on the record and shall also be filed in writing in compliance with subdivision (c). Such trial motions shall be ruled on immediately.
The reason trial courts were placed on this earth was to do justice. Rules were promulgated to assist the court, not hamper the court, in this endeavor. We read the rule to distinguish between those motions made on grounds for disqualification discovered before or after trial and those motions made on grounds discovered during trial. It is only the former that requires filing within 10 days. The reason for this difference is apparent. Motions made on grounds discovered before or after trial cannot be ruled on until the motion is made. There is every reason to promptly file such motion. But motions made during trial must, according to the rule, be ruled on immediately. The filing of the written motion, while necessary to preserve the record, has lost its urgency because the ruling has been made. We find the written motion was filed within a reasonable time and thus subject to our consideration.
REVERSED for a new trial before a different judge.
W. SHARP, J., and ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
AMENDMENTS TO THE FLA. RULES OF JUD. ADMIN. (2-YEAR CYCLE), 851 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 2003)…ry of the facts constituting the ground for the motion). Subdivision (e) also is amended to expressly provide that a motion to disqualify may be made orally, provided the motion is promptly reduced to writing and filed. See Stockstill v. Stockstill, 770 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)(holding that written motion to recuse judge was timely filed where counsel had made motion orally during trial); Roy v. Roy, 687 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)(holding that where perception of bias arose during hearing, counsel c…
-
Konior v. State, 884 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…with the State’s assertion that Konior’s motion for disqualification was ineffective because, the State contends, it was not “promptly reduced to writing” as required by Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.160(e). See Stockstill v. Stockstill, 770 So. 2d 191, 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (holding that written motion filed slightly more than ten days after trial at which party’s' counsel made unsuccessful oral motions to disqualify judge for her conduct during trial was timely under the rule). We reverse Kon…