KIMBERLY L. WILLIAMS F/K/A KIMBERLY L. WILLIAMS BALCH, PETITIONER,
v.
BRANDON BALCH, 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.
The court held that the trial judge's comments and active participation signaled a predisposition against the moving party, warranting disqualification.
Following a contentious divorce and ongoing child custody disputes, the former wife moved to dismiss proceedings due to the child's marriage and pregn…
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 Fear Of Bias cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This court is reviewing the denial of Kimberly Williams’ motion to disqualify. Disqualification is required when litigants demonstrate a reasonable, well-grounded fear that they will not receive a fair and impartial trial or that the judge has prejudged the case. We find that Williams has met that burden, and grant the requested relief. Wargo v. Wargo, 669 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
The parties were divorced in 1996. Their daughter was six years old at the time. Issues concerning visitation and shared parental responsibility of their daughter have resulted in appearances in both Florida and Alabama courts. Most recently, the Florida court found Williams, former wife, in contempt for frustrating the father’s visitation. The instant motion for disqualification arose following proceedings associated with former husband’s motion to modify custody of the now fourteen year old child.
Former wife moved to dismiss the proceedings as moot, alleging that the child had married, and was pregnant. Former husband countered with another motion for contempt, characterizing the marriage as a sham.
It is during the hearings on these motions that the court made comments signaling a predisposition against Williams’ position before considering her evidence, Wargo v. Wargo, 669 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). See also Peterson v. Asklipious, 833 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Swida v. Raventos, 872 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). We find further that the judge actively participated in the proceedings exceeding the role of neutral arbiter seeking information. Barrett v. Barrett, 851 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Of particular concern is that many of the court’s comments signaling its predisposition were the result of Williams’ answers to the court’s questions. Barrett.
We therefore grant the petition and quash the order denying disqualification.
POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur. GUNTHER, J., dissents without 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)…rican that this remark alone, made without the benefit of any affidavits, sworn testimony or other competent evidence, is sufficient to leave Great American with an objectively reasonable fear it will not receive a fair trial. See Williams v. Batch, 897 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (holding disqualification required when judicial comments signal predisposition made prior to consideration of evidence). Additional remarks made by the trial judge at the October 15 hearing also compel disqualification. For exa…
-
B.M. v. State, 943 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…er returned to the court with new criminal charges, he would be sent to detention was legally sufficient to support a motion for disqualification. Such a statement signals that the trial court has pre-judged petitioner’s case. See Williams v. Balch, 897 So. 2d 498, 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (finding judge’s comments signaled “a predisposition against Williams’ position before considering her evidence” and, thus, disqualification was required); Wargo v. Wargo, 669 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Accordingly,…
-
Shabtai v. Shabtai (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…State, 441 So. 2d 1083, 1087 (Fla. 1983)). We therefore conclude this petition should be granted as the trial court’s statements would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial. See Williams v. Balch, 897 So. 2d 498, 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“Disqualification is required when litigants demonstrate a reasonable, well- ---PAGE 8--- grounded fear that they will not receive a fair and impartial trial or that the judge has pre-judged the case.”). Petition grant…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Peterson v. Asklipious, 833 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Olgierd Swida v. Raventos, 872 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Barrett v. Barrett, 851 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)