Ballard v. Campbell

Summary

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of prohibition challenging the denial of a motion to disqualify a judge in a post-dissolution timesharing dispute. The court held that the motion was timely because it was filed on the date the petitioner discovered the judge’s prior representation by counsel for the opposing party, and that the alleged facts established an objectively reasonable fear of judicial bias.

Holdings

1. A motion to disqualify is timely under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330(e) when filed no later than ten days after the moving party discovers the facts constituting the grounds for disqualification. Because Ballard discovered the judge's prior representation on May 2 and filed his motion that same day, the motion was timely.
2. A motion to disqualify is legally sufficient when the alleged facts would cause a reasonably prudent person to fear that the judge could not provide a fair and impartial trial. A law firm's representation or recent representation of the presiding judge supports disqualification because the appearance of justice requires reassignment even without proof of actual bias.
3. Prohibition is available to prevent a trial judge from continuing to preside when a legally sufficient motion for disqualification has been denied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Ballard's motion to disqualify was timely under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330(e).
2. Whether the alleged prior representation of the presiding judge by a partner in counsel's law firm created an objectively reasonable fear of judicial bias and rendered the motion legally sufficient.
3. Whether prohibition was an appropriate remedy for the denial of the motion to disqualify.

Disposition

writ_granted