BLACKPOOL ASSOCIATES, LTD., A BRITISH VIRGIN ISLAND CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
SM-106, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, S-M CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AS SOLE GENERAL PARTNER OF SM-106, LTD., S. MARTIN SADKIN, DEBRA SADKIN, WILLIAM M. MURPHY, UNA MURPHY, AND EQUITABLE BANK, RESPONDENTS
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.
Blackpool Associates sought to foreclose on a note and mortgage but voluntarily dismissed the action. The trial court struck the dismissal and reinstated the case, and denied Blackpool's motion to disqualify the judge. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal strike but reversed the denial of disqualification, finding the trial court had improperly provided legal advice to one party.
The court affirmed the trial court's striking of the voluntary dismissal because no substitution of counsel was authorized. However, the court reversed the denial of disqualification because the trial court provided legal advice and suggestions to Blackpool/Kevin Murphy, requiring disqualification and allowing a successor judge to reconsider prior rulings.
[1] A trial court order striking a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice is affirmed when no substitution of counsel was authorized.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by providing legal advice and suggestions to a party in a disqualification proceeding.
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“We deny the challenges to that order as no substitution of counsel was authorized. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.060(h); Hicks v. Hicks, 715 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).”
The court's rationale for affirming the trial court's striking of the voluntary dismissal, based on lack of authorized counsel substitution.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBlackpool Associates filed a foreclosure action against SM-106, Ltd. and William and Una Murphy. William Murphy claimed ownership of Blackpool and mov…
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 Substitution Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We review five consolidated appellate proceedings challenging two trial court orders: 1) an order striking a notice of voluntary dismissal and 2) an order denying disqualification. Blackpool Associates, Ltd., through Kevin Murphy and the law firm of Levy, Kneen, Mariani LLC, filed an action to foreclose a note and mortgage alleging a default by SM-106, Ltd, and William and Una Murphy. William Murphy, through attorney H. Collins Forman, claimed ownership of Blackpool and moved to dismiss the litigation. Thereafter, William Murphy, on behalf of Blackpool, voluntarily dismissed the foreclosure action.
Within the first order, the trial court struck Blackpool/William Murphy’s notice of voluntary dismissal, with prejudice. When striking the voluntary dismissal, the trial court also reinstated the underlying case and the lis pendens. We deny the challenges to that order as no substitution of counsel was authorized. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.060(h); Hicks v. Hicks, 715 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).
We grant relief in connection with the trial court’s order that denied disqualification as the trial court provided Blaekpool/Kevin Murphy with legal advice and suggestions. See Cammarata v. Jones, 763 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Crescent Heights XLVI, Inc. v. Sear-Air Towers Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 729 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Shore Mariner Condo. Ass’n v. Antonious, 722 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), Chastine v. Broome, 629 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Hence, the successor judge may reconsider any prior factual or legal rulings. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.160(h).
STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. STONE, J. concurs specially with opinion.
STONE, J.,
concurring specially.
With respect to the petition for writ of prohibition, I concur on the authority of Cammarata. However, as indicated by my dissent in Cammarata, and but for Cammarata, I would distinguish the other opinions relied on by the majority and would have denied this petition. In all other respects, I concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Great Am. Ins. Co. OF NEW York v. 2000 Island Boulevard Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 153 So. 3d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…it were me, I would still ask questions of an opinion nature and get the statements regarding privilege on the record.” Such legal advice, standing alone, is sufficient to compel disqualification. See, e.g., Blackpool Assocs., Ltd. v. SM-106, Ltd., 839 So. 2d 837, 838 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“We grant relief in connection with the trial court’s order that denied disqualification as the trial court provided Blackpool/Kevin Murphy with legal advice and suggestions.”); Shore Mariner Condo. Ass’n v. Antonious, 722…
-
Barrett v. Barrett, 851 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…ourt. And I think everybody in this room needs to know that. The court’s examination of this witness went beyond that of a neutral arbiter seeking information, and into the impermissible role of an advocate. Blackpool Assocs., Ltd. v. SM-106, Ltd., 839 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Cammarata v. Jones, 763 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Chastine v. Broome, 629 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). We therefore grant the petition and quash the order denying disqualification. WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Kirby Lynn Chastine v. The Honorable Va. Gay Broome, 629 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Shore Mariner Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Nashaat Antonious and Soheir Antonious, 722 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Hicks v. Hicks, 715 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Cammarata v. Jones, 763 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Crescent Heights Xlvi, Inc. v. Sea-Air Towers Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 729 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)