PARDES
v.
PARDES, ET AL.

Fla. 3d DCA | 2019-01-16
No. 18-2161
Fernandez, J., Logue, J., Scales, J., Blake, J.
263 So. 3d 221 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2019)

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.


Holding

A trial court's denial of a motion to disqualify opposing counsel in a dissolution of marriage case is not subject to reversal on certiorari when the factual findings are supported by competent substantial evidence and the legal conclusions do not depart from the essential requirements of law.


Facts & Procedural History

In a dissolution of marriage case, Petitioner Andria Pardes moved to disqualify the attorney representing Respondent Michael Pardes. The trial court d…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Scales

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 16, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D18-2161 Lower Tribunal No. 14-10507 ________________ Andria Pardes, Petitioner, vs. Michael Pardes, et al., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Stanford Blake, Judge. Weissman & Dervishi, P.A., and Jeffrey M. Weissman (Fort Lauderdale), for petitioner. Law Offices of Paul Morris, P.A., and Paul Morris; Law Offices of Kornreich & Associates, and Gerald I. Kornreich and Amber Kornreich, for respondent Michael Pardes. Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this dissolution of marriage case, Petitioner Andria Pardes seeks certiorari review of a trial court order denying her motion to disqualify the attorney of Respondent Michael Pardes. The factual findings in the trial court’s order are supported by competent substantial evidence in the record, and the trial court’s legal conclusions do not depart from the essential requirements of law. We therefore deny the petition. Petition denied. 2


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw