Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed January 5, 2022.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-2204
Lower Tribunal No. 19-18029
________________
Belinda Meruelo,
Petitioner,
vs.
Maria C. Meruelo, et al.,
Respondents.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Ivonne Cuesta, Judge.
Nancy A. Hass, P.A., and Nancy A. Hass (Fort Lauderdale), for
petitioner.
Rafool, LLC, and Raymond J. Rafool and Seth J. Rutman, for
respondent Maria C. Meruelo.
Before SCALES, HENDON and MILLER, JJ.
SCALES, J.
Belinda Meruelo (“Petitioner”) seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s
October 27, 2021 “Order Denying Motion for Stay Pending Hearing on
Emergency Motion for Disqualification of Philip Schecter, CPA and Ore
Tenus Motion for Stay Pending Appellate Review.” Essentially, Petitioner
asserts that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the
law by not staying the underlying marital dissolution proceeding between
respondents Maria C. Meruelo (“Wife”) and Richard Meruelo (“Husband”)
until the trial court adjudicates Petitioner’s pending motions to disqualify
Wife’s forensic accountant. For the following reasons, we deny the petition.
Petitioner, Husband’s mother, is a third-party defendant in this
dissolution of marriage proceeding because she allegedly has an interest in
marital assets that are subject to equitable distribution. Two and a half years
before Wife’s August 13, 2019 filing of the instant marital dissolution petition,
Petitioner and certain entities owned and co-owned by Petitioner were co-
defendants in a commercial litigation action. In that commercial dispute,
Petitioner’s counsel hired Philip Schecter, C.P.A. to perform forensic
accounting work for Petitioner and her entities. The dispute settled in August
of 2017 pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement.
On learning that Wife had retained Philip Schecter, C.P.A. to perform
forensic accounting work on Wife’s behalf in the instant divorce proceeding,
2
and after being made a third-party defendant thereto, Petitioner moved
below to disqualify Philip Schecter, C.P.A. as Wife’s expert accounting
witness. Petitioner further sought to stay either the entire divorce proceeding
or just Philip Schecter, C.P.A.’s involvement in the case until the trial court
adjudicated her various disqualification motions. On October 27, 2021, the
trial court held a hearing on Petitioner’s disqualification and stay motions.
Following the hearing, the trial court entered the challenged order that (i)
continued the hearing as to Petitioner’s disqualification motions, and (ii)
denied Petitioner’s stay motions. In the instant petition, Petitioner seeks
certiorari review of the trial court’s denial of her stay motions.
To be entitled to certiorari relief, Petitioner “must establish that the trial
court’s order . . . departed from the essential requirements of law in a way
that will cause irreparable harm.” Univ. of Miami v. Ruiz ex rel. Ruiz,
164 So.
3d 758, 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). “A departure from the essential
requirements of the law means ‘a violation of a clearly established principle
of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.’” Gator Boring & Trenching, Inc.
v. Westra Constr. Corp.,
210 So. 3d 175, 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (quoting
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos,
843 So. 2d 885, 889 (Fla. 2003)). While
granting a stay under the circumstances presented in this case may be
prudent case management, Petitioner has cited to, and we have found, no
3
court rule, statute, or case that, as a matter of law, requires a trial court to
stay proceedings until a pending disqualification motion is adjudicated.
Because Petitioner has not identified a clearly established principle of
law from which the trial court departed, we are compelled to deny the
petition. 1
Petition denied.
1
We express no opinion on the merits of Petitioner’s disqualification motions.
4
