GLEN GIBELLINA, APPELLANT,
v.
CONNIE IWANOWSKI F/K/A CONNIE GIBELLINA, 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.
The court denied Gibellina's petition for a writ of prohibition challenging the trial judge's disqualification denial and affirmed the denial of relief from past orders, while encouraging further proceedings to reach final resolution on timesharing.
A trial court's denial of a motion to disqualify and denial of relief from past orders is affirmed where the record does not provide a basis for questioning the court's concerns about the child's well-being.
[1] A parent's misuse of the judicial system does not necessarily preclude that parent from being an appropriate parent, and litigation conduct should be distinguished from p…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGlen Gibellina appealed orders denying relief from past orders and denying his motion to disqualify the trial judge in a family law matter involving t…
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 Parental Fitness cases and more on FLexlaw
Glen Gibellina appeals a nonfinal order that denied relief from past orders and denied his motion to disqualify the trial judge. We treat Gibellina’s argument about the motion to disqualify as a petition seeking a writ of prohibition, see Carrow v. Fla. Bar, 848 So.2d 1283, 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), and we deny the petition. We also affirm on the remaining issues raised on appeal.
We are not unsympathetic to Gibellina’s argument that he should have some opportunity for timesharing with his minor child. But the circuit court’s orders express concern about the child’s well-being when Gibellina is involved, and our limited appendix does not provide a basis for questioning this concern. However, we also encourage the circuit court to conduct further proceedings. Gibellina’s apparent misuse of the judicial system does not foreclose the possibility that he is able to be an appropriate parent. See Andrews v. Andrews, 624 So.2d 391, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (distinguishing a parent’s litigation conduct from her parenting skills). The circuit court has appointed an attorney ad litem to protect the child’s interests, and the court should move the ease to a final resolution.
Petition denied; affirmed.
KHOUZAM and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ciprian-Escapa v. City OF Orlando, 172 So. 3d 485 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…g party has a due process entitlement to notice and an opportunity to be heard as to the presentation and evaluation of evidence necessary to a judicial interpretation of the amount of unliquidated damages.” Minkoff v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp., 103 So. 3d 1049, 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Asian Imports, Inc. v. Pepe, 633 So. 2d 551, 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)). This is so even when the answer is stricken and a default is entered as a sanction. DYC Fishing, Ltd. v. Martinez, 994 So. 2d 461, 462-63 (Fla.…
-
Talbot v. Rosenbaum, 142 So. 3d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…stimony or evidence ‘to ascertain facts upon which to base a value judgment.’ ” Id. (quoting Bowman, 432 So. 2d at 662). BOYI, LLC v. Premiere Am. Bank, N.A., 127 So. 3d 850, 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Minkoffv. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp., 103 So. 3d 1049, 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)). In other words, entry of a default judgment does not deprive the defendant of the right to a hearing to determine damages which are not unliquidated. Matejka, 40 So. 3d at 866. Although Rosenbaum argued that the subject…
-
Boyi, LLC v. Premiere Am. Bank, N.A., 127 So. 3d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…or did the court require proof of said damages from the appellees before the court’s entry of the final judgment. Ap-pellees concede error on this point. We agree and reverse. As this court stated in Minkoff v. Caterpillar Financial Services Corp., 103 So. 3d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013): “A default admits a plaintiffs entitlement to liquidated damages under a well-pled cause of action, but not to un-liquidated damages.” Bodygear Activewear, Inc. v. Counter Intelligence Servs., 946 So. 2d 1148, 1150 (Fla. 4th DC…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Andrews v. Andrews, 624 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Carrow v. THE Florida BAR, 848 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)