Rivkind v. Patterson
| Decision Date | 18 April 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 86790,86790 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly S169 Leonard RIVKIND, etc., Petitioner, v. Victor PATTERSON, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal--Certified Great Public Importance, Third District--Case No. 95-1813.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Michael J. Neimand, Assistant Attorney General, Miami, for Petitioners.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Manuel Alvarez, Assistant Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, for Respondent.
We have for review Patterson v. Rivkind, 672 So.2d 826, 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), wherein the district court of appeal certified the following question to be of great public importance:
IS THE EXCLUSIVE AND PERPETUAL MONTHLY ASSIGNMENT, CONTINUING OVER SEVERAL YEARS, OF COUNTY COURT JUDGES TO HEAR ALL PETITIONS FOR PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY INJUNCTIONS IN THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DEPARTMENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT UNLAWFUL?
We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.
In furtherance of the Dade County Domestic Violence Plan, a plan to reduce the rate of incidence of domestic violence in the community, the Eleventh Judicial Circuit created the Domestic Violence Division of the Circuit and County Courts of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit (the "Division"). Since its inception, the Division has been staffed exclusively by county court judges who have been reassigned to the Division on a monthly basis. The Division was created to handle temporary and permanent injunctions in domestic and repeat violence cases as well as all misdemeanor cases involving domestic and repeat violence. Not all domestic and repeat violence injunctions are handled in the Division, however. For example, circuit court judges hear all petitions for permanent injunctions in cases relating to the dissolution of marriage, maintenance or support, or paternity.
In 1995, a petition seeking a permanent injunction against Victor Patterson for domestic violence was filed in the Eleventh Circuit. The petition came before Judge Langer, a county court judge who had been assigned to the Division pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.050(b)(4). 1 Patterson filed a motion seeking to disqualify Judge Langer, arguing that the exclusive and successive assignments of county court judges to handle permanent and temporary injunctions in domestic violence cases are improper temporary assignments under both rule 2.050(b)(4) and article V, section 2(b) of the Florida Constitution inasmuch as these assignments effectually usurp the jurisdiction of the circuit court. Judge Langer denied the motion. Thereafter, Patterson filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and for a writ of prohibition with the Third District Court of Appeal. The district court granted the petition for the writ of prohibition, concluding that the judicial assignments at issue impermissibly deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction over a particular type of case on a permanent basis and were not therefore lawful temporary assignments. The district court then certified the question set forth herein and stayed its mandate pending this Court's review.
At the outset, we reiterate that this Court "has exclusive jurisdiction to review judicial assignments." Wild v. Dozier, 672 So.2d 16, 17 (Fla.1996); see also J.G. v. Holtzendorf, 669 So.2d 1043 (Fla.1996); Holsman v. Cohen, 667 So.2d 769 (Fla.1996). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court was without jurisdiction to review the judicial assignments at issue. We treat the petition for a writ of prohibition filed with the district court, however, as if it had been filed in this Court and answer the certified question.
Despite the wording of the certified question, not all temporary and permanent injunctions in domestic violence cases in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Physicians Healthcare Plans, Inc. v. Pfeifler, No. SC01-2062
...spanning four years of county judge to preside in circuit court over half of all felony cases in a county); Rivkind v. Patterson, 672 So.2d 819, 820-21 (Fla.1996) (approving successive monthly assignments spanning several years as "a logical and lawful means to ensure the expeditious and ef......
-
Green v. State, 95-02605
...(Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (finding the district court lacks the authority to review a motion for case reassignment). See also Rivkind v. Patterson, 672 So.2d 819 (Fla.1996); Holsman v. Cohen, 667 So.2d 769 By adopting this position, we acknowledge a potential conflict with other districts that hav......
-
Jackson v. State, SC11–2326.
...Physicians Healthcare Plans, Inc., v. Pfeifler, 846 So.2d 1129, 1133 (Fla.2003); Wild v. Dozier, 672 So.2d 16 (Fla.1996); Rivkind v. Patterson, 672 So.2d 819 (Fla.1996); Holsman v. Cohen, 667 So.2d 769, 771 (Fla.1996).POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., ...
-
Florida family law rules of procedure
...in family division does not violate constitution where county judges are also performing the work of county court. Rivkind v. Patterson , 672 So.2d 819 (Fla. 1996). Walker v. Bentley Legislature may not eliminate the court’s ability to apply its inherent power to punish through civil or cri......