Probate disputes can get lengthy and personal, you may start to notice the judge has already made up their minds,this is called prejudging the case. In Florida, this is strictly prohibited and if a judge’s comments on the records indicate the case is prejudged a party may be entitled to a new judge. How can you tell if the comments the judge made are enough to be considered prejudging the case? A writ issued by the Third District Court of Appeal highlights one easy way to show that a judge has prejudged the case, in this case a new judge is almost guarenteed, is it possible to get a similar result out of your case?
- Wolfson v. Wolfson was a marriage dissolution (divorce) and Candice Wolfson the Petitioner in this case filed for a writ of prohibition which is a fancy way of saying she asked the higher court to order that the proceedings be prohibited from continuing after her motion for the judge to recuse themself was denied.
- The motion would have allowed Candice’s case to be heard by a new judge.
- The Court notes that it is well settled that judge can form “mental impressions” but it is prohibited from prejudging the case, i.e. “making up their mind.”
- The Court said that the trial court’s comments (from the judge presiding over the dissolution) showed that she had prejudged the case. Essentially that was enough for the recusal which is proper anytime a person has reasonable fears of partiality (judging before hearing the evidence is clear evidence of impartiality in other words).
- The problem in most Florida Probate cases is how do i prove lack of impartiality? Dont forget that everything the trial court says is usually on record if you have a court reporter, but what exact language establishes prejudice? This case does not say enough to really know what moved the court to its decision but one thing is clear – you have a right to an impartial judge in your Florida Probate proceedings.