ALEJANDRO QUINTAS VAZQUEZ v. AILYN M. REBAZA SMITH ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •        Third District Court of Appeal
    State of Florida
    Opinion filed February 3, 2021.
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    ________________
    No. 3D21-0370
    Lower Tribunal No. 17-16028
    ________________
    Alejandro Quintas Vazquez,
    Petitioner,
    vs.
    Ailyn M. Rebaza Smith,
    Respondent.
    A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition.
    Alejandro Quintas Vazquez, in proper person.
    No appearance for respondent.
    Before MILLER, GORDO, and BOKOR, JJ.
    MILLER, J.
    Petitioner, Alejandro Quintas Vazquez, seeks a writ of prohibition to
    prevent the assigned trial judge from further presiding over his dissolution of
    marriage proceedings pending below. His verified disqualification motion,
    deemed legally insufficient by the trial judge, alleges nothing more than
    adverse judicial rulings. We write only to reiterate the well-settled principle
    that the laws governing judicial disqualification were never intended “to
    enable a discontented litigant to oust a judge because of adverse rulings
    made,” but, instead, serve “to prevent his [or her] future action in the pending
    case.” Berger v. United States, 
    255 U.S. 22
    , 31, 
    41 S. Ct. 230
    , 232, 
    65 L. Ed. 481
     (1921) (citation omitted); see Ex parte Am. Steel Barrel Co., 
    230 U.S. 35
    , 43-44, 
    33 S. Ct. 1007
    , 1010, 
    57 L. Ed. 1379
     (1913); Wilson v.
    Renfroe, 
    91 So. 2d 857
    , 860 (Fla. 1956); State ex rel. Locke v. Sandler, 
    23 So. 2d 276
    , 278 (Fla. 1945). Consequently, mere recitations of adverse
    rulings, without more, do not constitute the requisite bias or prejudice
    necessary to support disqualification. See Ault v. State, 
    53 So. 3d 175
    , 204
    (Fla. 2010); Suarez v. State, 
    95 Fla. 42
    , 58, 
    115 So. 519
    , 525 (1928); Clark
    v. Clark, 
    159 So. 3d 1015
    , 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Areizaga v. Spicer,
    
    841 So. 2d 494
    , 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Johnson v. Johnson, 
    725 So. 2d 1209
    , 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Orr v. State, 
    741 So. 2d 636
    , 636 (Fla. 4th
    DCA 1999); Solana v. Solana, 
    706 So. 2d 414
    , 415 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).
    “Whether such rulings were correct or not is a matter to be determined on
    appeal from the final judgment.” Claughton v. Claughton, 
    452 So. 2d 1073
    ,
    2
    1074 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).          Accordingly, here, petitioner has failed to
    demonstrate a basis for relief.
    Petition denied.
    3