Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

February 6, 2014 by admin

Judge erred in ruling on motions two days prior to recusing himself when grounds for recusal were known at the time of such rulings

39 Fla. L. Weekly D256c


Judges — Disqualification — Judge erred in ruling on
motions two days before he recused himself on his own initiative where grounds
for recusal were known to court at time of rulings — Relief not available on
appeal, as party is not entitled to have disqualified judge’s orders vacated as
a matter of right — Because party filed timely motion for reconsideration
challenging merits of orders entered by disqualified judge, upon remand
successor judge should grant that motion and reconsider those prior rulings

ROBERT BUCKNER, et al., Appellants, v. JANET COWLING, JERRY COWLING, et al.,
Appellees. 5th District. Case No. 5D13-2971. Opinion filed January 31, 2014. Non
Final Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hernando County, Richard Tombrink, Jr.,
Judge. Counsel: Frank A. Miller, Carl F. Yeich and Susanne M. Suiter of
Caglianone, Miller & Lao, P.A., Brooksville, for Appellants. James R. Spears
of Law Office of James R. Spears, PLLC, Orlando, for Appellees.
(PER CURIAM.) Robert Buckner appeals from the trial court’s nonfinal orders
granting Janet and Jerry Cowling’s motion to set aside an order of dismissal and
granting the Cowlings’ motion for extension of time to serve summons and
complaint. Buckner raises two issues on appeal, only one of which merits
discussion. He argues that the trial judge erred in ruling on those two motions,
when, two days later, the judge recused himself on his own initiative. Buckner
contends that the court should not have ruled on the Cowlings’ motions because
the grounds for recusal were known to the court at the time it entered the
orders. Accordingly, he asks this Court to reverse those orders and remand with
instructions to set them aside.
Prior rulings of a disqualified judge may be reconsidered and vacated by a
successor judge upon the filing of a motion for reconsideration. See Fla.
R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(h). Although an order entered by a judge who is later
disqualified is subject to reconsideration by a successor judge, a party is not
entitled to have the order vacated as a matter of right. See
Schlesinger v. Chem. Bank, 707 So. 2d 868, 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998);
see also Doe ex rel. Doe v. Publix Supermarkets, 814 So. 2d 1249,
1251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“Orders entered by a disqualified judge are voidable
not void.” (quoting Schlesinger, 707 So. 2d at 869)). Thus, we cannot
grant Buckner the relief that he seeks on appeal. However, because Buckner filed
a timely motion for reconsideration challenging the merits of the orders entered
by the disqualified judge, upon remand the successor judge should grant that
motion and reconsider those prior rulings.

REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. (EVANDER,
COHEN and WALLIS, JJ., concur.)

* * *

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982