BRENDA MOLINA, PETITIONER,
v.
MELVIN PEREZ, 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.
Brenda Molina petitioned for a writ of prohibition to overturn a trial judge's denial of her motion to recuse. The Third District Court of Appeal held that the judge's alleged comments created a reasonable fear of an unfair trial, warranting disqualification under established Florida law.
The court granted the petition for writ of prohibition, holding that the judge's alleged comments could reasonably cause a party to fear not receiving a fair trial, thereby satisfying the legal standard for disqualification.
[1] A motion for disqualification is legally sufficient if the facts alleged, taken as true, would prompt a reasonably prudent person to fear that they could not receive a fa…
[2] When reviewing a petition for disqualification based on a trial court's comments, the standard is the reasonable effect on the party seeking disqualification, not the sub…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“whether 'the facts alleged (which must be taken as true) would prompt a reasonably prudent person to fear that he could not get a fair and impartial trial.'”
Establishes the legal standard for testing the sufficiency of a motion for disqualification
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Molina filed a verified motion to recuse the trial judge based on alleged comments made by the judge. The trial court denied the motion for…
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 Motion For Recusal cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition from an order denying her verified motion to recuse the trial judge. In determining the legal sufficiency of a motion for disqualification, the test is “whether ‘the facts alleged (which must be taken as true) would prompt a reasonably prudent person to fear that he could not get a fair and impartial trial.’ ” Brofman v. Fla. Hearing Care Ctr., Inc., 703 So.2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). In reviewing a petition based upon comments made by the trial court, “the standard is the reasonable effect on the party seeking disqualification, not the subjective intent of the judge.” Vivas v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 789 So.2d 1252, 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoting Brofman, 703 So.2d at 1192), (emphasis added).
In this case we agree with the petitioner that the alleged comments could reasonably have caused her to “fear that she would not receive a fair trial.” As stated in Colarusso v. Colarusso, 20 So.3d 985, 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), “[t]he judge’s decidedly negative commentary concerning his personal opinion of the petitioner’s behavior, when viewed in the context of, and at this stage of, the dissolution proceeding, is sufficient to create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear that he would not receive a fair hearing before this judge.” See Miami Dade College v. Turnberry Inv., Inc., 979 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Valdes-Fauli v. Valdes-Fauli, 903 So.2d 214, 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Kopel v. Kopel, 832 So.2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Doe, 767 So.2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Tindle v. Tindle, 761 So.2d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
*910Accordingly, we grant the petition. We are certain that it will be unnecessary to issue a formal writ. Petition granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LAW Offs. OF Herssein & Herssein, P.A. v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 229 So. 3d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…t for determining the legal sufficiency of a motion for disqualification is whether “the facts alleged (which must be taken as true) would prompt a reasonably prudent person to fear that he could not get a fair and impartial trial,” Molina v. Perez, 187 So. 3d 909, 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (quoting Brofman v. Fla. Hearing Care Ctr., Inc., 703 So. 2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)). Our review of the facts focuses on “the reasonable effect on the party seeking disqualification, not' the subjective intent of the…
-
Bank of Am. v. Atkin, 271 So. 3d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…or determining the legal sufficiency of a motion for disqualification is whether “the facts alleged (which must be taken as true) would prompt a reasonably prudent person to fear that he could not get a fair and impartial trial.” Molina v. Perez, 187 So. 3d 909, 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (quoting Brofman v. Fla. Hearing Care Ctr., Inc., 703 So. 2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)). We therefore must ---PAGE 10--- consider whether a reasonably prudent person would fear that he or she could not receive a fair…
-
Chmilarski v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 340 So. 3d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Valdes-Fauli v. Gonzalo F. Valdes-Fauli, 903 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Kopel v. Bernardo Kopel, 832 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Jane DOE and her spouse, 767 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Brofman v. Fla. Hearing Care Ctr., Inc., 703 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Miami Dade Coll. v. Turnberry Invs., Inc., 979 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Colarusso v. Brenna Myers Colarusso, 20 So. 3d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Tindle v. Tindle, 761 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- J.M. v. State, 789 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Vivas v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 789 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)