RONALD M. TEAGUE, APPELLANT,
v.
SHERYL D. GIRTMAN, 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 this paternity case, the father appealed final judgments on parental responsibility, time-sharing, and child support. The Fifth District reversed and remanded because the trial court erred in finding the father's objection to magistrate referral untimely, as the court failed to apply the mailbox rule adding five days to the ten-day objection deadline.
The father's objection to the magistrate referral was timely because when an order is served by mail, five days must be added to the ten-day objection deadline under the mailbox rule, making his eleven-day response timely. The motion for recusal was legally insufficient because it alleged improprieties occurring more than two months before the motion was filed, exceeding the ten-day time limit required by Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330(e).
[1] A referral of a paternity case to a magistrate is improper when the father timely objects to the referral.
[2] A motion for recusal is legally insufficient if it alleges improprieties that occurred significantly before the motion was filed, exceeding the prescribed time limit for…
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“reversal and remand for a new hearing are required because the father timely objected to the trial court's referral of the case to a magistrate”
Establishes the primary holding that the father's objection was timely and the case must be retried
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court referred a paternity case to a magistrate. The father filed an objection eleven days after the referral order was mailed to him. Both …
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 Timesharing cases and more on FLexlaw
In this paternity case, the father appeals two final judgments establishing shared parental responsibility, time-sharing, child support and back child support. Although he raises a number of issues, we need only address two. First, the father argues, and the mother correctly concedes, that reversal and remand for a new hearing are required because the father timely objected to the trial court’s referral of the case to a magistrate.1 Second, we hold that the trial court properly denied the father’s motion for recusal (disqualification) as legally insufficient. The motion was legally insufficient because it alleged improprieties that occurred at a hearing almost two months before the motion was filed, well beyond the ten-day time limit for such motions required by Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330(e).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new hearing before the trial court.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SAWAYA, LAWSON and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Darin Skelly v. Angelle Skelly, 257 So. 3d 150 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Christ v. Christ, 939 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Calderon v. Calderon, 26 So. 3d 688 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)