You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Overcash v. Overcash

Citations: 91 So. 3d 254; 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10566; 2012 WL 2466568Docket: No. 5D11-3689

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; June 29, 2012; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the Petitioner sought a writ of prohibition to disqualify a Senior Circuit Court Judge from presiding over a family law case involving shared parenting responsibilities. The Petitioner contended that the judge failed to rule on a motion for disqualification within the thirty-day period mandated by Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330(j), following allegations of judicial bias. The motion was filed on August 19, 2011, but was not denied until October 3, 2011, exceeding the allotted time. The Respondent argued that the time limit was never activated due to an alleged lack of service on the judge, based on deficiencies in the certificate of service. However, the court found that the certificate, along with an affidavit from the process server, constituted sufficient evidence of proper service. The court ultimately concluded that the judge failed to rule timely on the disqualification motion, resulting in its automatic granting. Consequently, the court issued a writ of prohibition, disqualifying the judge from further involvement in the case, a decision supported by two concurring judges.

Legal Issues Addressed

Disqualification of Judge under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330(j)

Application: The court determined that the judge's failure to rule on a motion for disqualification within the thirty-day limit led to an automatic granting of the motion.

Reasoning: As a result, the Court concluded that the motion to disqualify was deemed granted due to the judge's failure to rule within thirty days.

Service of Motion and Certificate of Service

Application: The court found that a certificate of service serves as prima facie evidence of service compliance, supported by an affidavit from a process server, despite the certificate not explicitly indicating service on the judge.

Reasoning: The Court disagreed, noting that a certificate of service is prima facie evidence of compliance and that service was confirmed by an affidavit from the Petitioner’s process server, who delivered the motion to a security officer at the courthouse on the same day it was filed.