TATYANA USSIN
v.
ZOE WOOD
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.
A trial judge's failure to grant a timely motion for disqualification requires reversal and remand for a new hearing before a different judge, regardless of the merits of the underlying judgment.
[1] When a trial judge should have been disqualified, the appellate court need not address the merits of other arguments on appeal, as they become moot upon reversal and rema…
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 intelligenceTatyana Ussin appealed a final judgment of injunction for protection against stalking entered against her by the Circuit Court for Duval County after …
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 Injunction For Protection Against Stalking cases and more on FLexlaw
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________ Case No. 5D2025-0426 LT Case No. 2024-DR-005825 _____________________________ TATYANA USSIN, Appellant, v. ZOE WOOD, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Eric C. Roberson, Judge. Tatyana Ussin, Arlington, VA, pro se. No Appearance for Appellee. November 21, 2025
PER CURIAM.
Appellant timely appeals the final judgment of injunction for protection against stalking entered against her and in favor of Appellee after an evidentiary hearing. Appellant challenges both the sufficiency of the evidence for the final judgment and the denial of her motion to disqualify the trial judge.1 We agree, without 1 Appellant titled the motion as “Motion to Recuse the Judge.”
2 further elaboration, that Appellant’s motion for disqualification should have been granted; resultingly, we need not and therefore decline to reach the merits of her other argument. See Rosenwater v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. for Soundview Home Loan Tr. 2007- NS1 Asset-backed Certificates, Series 2007-NS1, 220 So. 3d 1204, 1204–05 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (explaining that because the panel agreed with the appellant about the disqualification of the trial judge, the appellant’s separate argument about the sufficiency of the evidence for the appealed order of contempt was rendered moot). Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment and the order denying the motion for disqualification and remand for a new hearing in front of a different judge. REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions. JAY, C.J., and MAKAR and LAMBERT, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fine v. Bobanic (Fla. 5th DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Rosenwater v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. FOR the Soundview Home Loan Tr. 2007-NS1 Asset-Backed Certificates, 220 So. 3d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)