Clark v. Clark, 1D14–5949.
| Decision Date | 25 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D14–5949.,1D14–5949. |
| Parties | Don Floyd CLARK, Former Husband, Petitioner, v. Jean Watkins CLARK, Former Wife, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Don Floyd CLARK, Former Husband, Petitioner
v.
Jean Watkins CLARK, Former Wife, Respondent.
No. 1D14–5949.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
March 25, 2015.
Michael J. Korn of Korn & Zehmer, P.A., Jacksonville; David A. Garfinkel of Gray Robinson, P.A., Jacksonville, for Petitioner.
William S. Graessle and Jonathan W. Graessle, Jacksonville, for Respondent.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
This petition for writ of prohibition seeks disqualification of the trial judge in a dissolution of marriage case. Concluding that the trial judge correctly ruled that the motion to disqualify was legally insufficient, we deny the petition.
After entering an initial order dissolving the parties' marriage on May 12, 2014, the trial judge reserved jurisdiction to rule on the financial issues and entered a supplemental final judgment on October 27, 2014. The former husband then filed a motion to disqualify the trial judge pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330(f) which contained two overall claims: first, that the supplemental final judgment itself showed bias against the former husband because it substantially mirrored the former wife's proposed supplemental final judgment and discounted the credibility of one of the former husband's witnesses, and second, that the trial judge later made comments to one of the former husband's witnesses evincing bias.
The motion asserted that both parties retained Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) to testify at trial. In the supplemental final judgment, the judge referred to the former husband's CPA as a “friend who is also an accountant” and stated that he had “not placed much credibility on the testimony of [the former husband's] friend and accountant.” The motion asserted that the Supplemental Final Judgment did not discount the credibility of the former wife's CPA and simply referred to him as a “CPA.” The motion stated that after the supplemental final judgment issued, the former husband's CPA sent the trial judge a letter “explaining...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aquasol Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n
...ground to disqualify the trial judge." Id. at 660. See also, Lomax v. Reynolds, 119 So.3d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) ; Clark v. Clark, 159 So.3d 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (noting: "It is well-settled that adverse rulings are insufficient to show bias"); Campbell Soup Co. v. Roberts, 676 So.2d 43......
-
Aquasol Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. HSBC Bank United States, 3D17-352
...ground to disqualify the trial judge." Id. at 660. See also, Lomax v. Reynolds, 119 So. 3d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Clark v. Clark, 159 So. 3d 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (noting: "It is well-settled that adverse rulings are insufficient to show bias"); Campbell Soup Co. v. Roberts, 676 So. 2d ......
-
JJN FLB, LLC v. CFLB P'ship, LLC
...So. 2d 441, 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), it is equally "well-settled that adverse rulings are insufficient to show bias." Clark v. Clark, 159 So. 3d 1015, 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (citations omitted). This is because judicial rulings "cannot possibly show reliance upon an extrajudicial source, ......
-
Samra v. Bedoyan
...Inc. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., ––– So.3d ––––, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D2416, 2018 WL 5733627 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 31, 2018) ; Clark v. Clark, 159 So. 3d 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). In the instant case, however, neither Samra nor his counsel was permitted to attend or participate in the hearing, Samra w......