In re Disqualification of Baronzzi , 138 Ohio St. 3d 1210 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as In re Disqualification of Baronzzi, 
    138 Ohio St.3d 1210
    , 
    2013-Ohio-5899
    .]
    IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF BARONZZI.
    GOOD v. TRAGESER.
    [Cite as In re Disqualification of Baronzzi, 
    138 Ohio St.3d 1210
    ,
    
    2013-Ohio-5899
    .]
    Judges—Affidavit of disqualification—R.C. 2701.03—When an affidavit is filed
    after commencement of a trial, vague allegations of an appearance of
    impropriety are insufficient to demonstrate a “fixed anticipatory
    judgment” that undermines the public’s confidence in the fairness and
    integrity of the proceeding.
    (No. 13-AP-112—Decided December 2, 2013.)
    ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Columbiana County Court of Common
    Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No. C2012-0372, AB21230345.
    ____________________
    O’CONNOR, C.J.
    {¶ 1} Defendant Charlotte Trageser has filed an affidavit with the clerk
    of this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge Thomas M. Baronzzi
    from presiding over any further proceedings in case No. C2012-0372,
    AB21230345, a child-custody case in the Juvenile Division of the Court of
    Common Pleas of Columbiana County.
    {¶ 2} The plaintiff filed his complaint in October 2012. About a year
    later, Trageser filed a motion to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel, Tracey Laslo,
    arguing that Laslo had a conflict of interest because Trageser had consulted with
    her in 2011 about an unrelated divorce matter. After a hearing, Judge Baronzzi
    denied Trageser’s motion in a November 1, 2013 judgment entry. In her affidavit
    of disqualification, Trageser claims that the judge’s ruling on her motion, his
    SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
    conduct at the hearing, and the language in his judgment entry have created an
    appearance of impropriety requiring his removal from the underlying case.
    {¶ 3} Judge Baronzzi has responded in writing to Trageser’s affidavit,
    averring that he harbors no bias against her.
    {¶ 4} For the reasons explained below, no basis has been established to
    order the disqualification of Judge Baronzzi.
    {¶ 5} “When an affidavit is filed after commencement of a trial and after
    the presentation of evidence has begun, a judge should be disqualified only when
    the record ‘clearly and unquestionably demonstrates a “fixed anticipatory
    judgment” * * * that undermines the absolute confidence of the public in the
    fairness and integrity of the proceedings.’ ” In re Disqualification of Swift, 
    136 Ohio St.3d 1273
    , 
    2013-Ohio-4464
    , 
    996 N.E.2d 939
    , ¶ 5, quoting In re
    Disqualification of Kate, 
    88 Ohio St.3d 1208
    , 1209, 
    723 N.E.2d 1098
     (1999),
    quoting State ex rel. Pratt v. Weygandt, 
    164 Ohio St. 463
    , 469, 
    132 N.E.2d 191
    (1956). Here, a merit hearing commenced on July 9, 2013, and after a full day of
    evidence, Judge Baronzzi continued the matter for a second merit hearing on
    November 26, 2013.       Accordingly, because the presentation of evidence has
    already begun, Trageser cannot rely on vague allegations of an appearance of
    impropriety to succeed on her affidavit. Rather, she must demonstrate that Judge
    Baronzzi has clearly reached a fixed anticipatory judgment in the underlying case.
    {¶ 6} Trageser has failed to submit sufficient proof to carry this heavy
    burden.   First, her disagreement with Judge Baronzzi’s refusal to disqualify
    attorney Laslo is not grounds for disqualification.     Trageser criticizes Judge
    Baronzzi’s evidentiary rulings at the recent hearing, and she argues that he
    applied an incorrect legal standard in his judgment entry.         But it is well
    established that a party’s “dissatisfaction or disagreement with a judge’s rulings,
    even if those rulings may be erroneous, does not constitute bias or prejudice and
    is not grounds for the judge’s disqualification.” In re Disqualification of Floyd,
    2
    SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
    
    101 Ohio St.3d 1217
    , 
    2003-Ohio-7351
    , 
    803 N.E.2d 818
    , ¶ 4. Trageser’s remedy
    for these legal claims, if any, lies on appeal, not through the filing of an affidavit
    of disqualification. In re Disqualification of Russo, 
    110 Ohio St.3d 1208
    , 2005-
    Ohio-7146, 
    850 N.E.2d 713
    , ¶ 6.
    {¶ 7} Second, the judge’s language in his November 1 judgment entry is
    also not grounds for disqualification. In that entry, the judge stated:
    Ms. Trageser, previously within the custody case, has made
    allegations against the father of her child that he is an abuser of
    drugs and alcohol. Upon further investigation of that allegation, it
    was found that the father tested negative for any evidence of drug
    abuse. Furthermore, by Ms. Trageser’s testimony, she has very
    aggressively and defensively presented herself as self-righteous
    and the victim of virtually all persons with whom she has a
    personal or professional relationship in recent years. The Court,
    quite frankly, does not find that there is credible evidence that Ms.
    Trageser has divulged to Attorney Tracy Laslo, by a prior meeting,
    any information regarding any personal or other details relevant to
    the issues before the Court for determination and the Court,
    therefore, concludes that the allegations are untrue.
    Trageser claims that the judge’s comments regarding the father’s alleged drug
    abuse show that he has reached an opinion on an ultimate issue of fact in the case.
    In response, Judge Baronzzi explains that in December 2012, Trageser accused
    the plaintiff of abusing drugs, and the judge therefore ordered drug testing. In
    January 2013, the results of the plaintiff’s tests came back negative. Thus, the
    judge’s comments in his November 1 entry appear to be stating a fact in the
    record, not an opinion on an ultimate issue of fact. Accordingly, without more
    3
    SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
    explanation from Trageser, her vague and unsubstantiated allegation here is
    insufficient for a finding of bias or prejudice. See In re Disqualification of
    Walker, 
    36 Ohio St.3d 606
    , 
    522 N.E.2d 460
     (1988).
    {¶ 8} As to the other comments in the judge’s entry, Trageser states that
    one “would expect [the statements] to come from the opposing counsel, but to be
    uttered by a Judge in his ruling on a motion in the middle of a trial is without a
    doubt tainting the due process of a fair and impartial hearing.” For his part, Judge
    Baronzzi explains that after observing Trageser’s testimony at both the hearing on
    her motion to disqualify Laslo and the July merit hearing, he had developed
    “significant concerns” regarding her “general veracity and/or motivations.” He
    further explains that he was “candid and honest” with her in his findings that there
    was no credible evidence to support her motion.
    {¶ 9} Contrary to Trageser’s contention, a judge, like any trier of fact, is
    expected to assess a witness’s character and credibility. In re Disqualification of
    Gaines, 
    74 Ohio St.3d 1259
    , 1261, 
    657 N.E.2d 1359
     (1994). And when a judge’s
    opinion regarding a party’s credibility is formed on the basis of evidence
    presented during the course of the proceedings, that opinion is not deemed to be
    the product of bias or prejudice. See 
    id.
     (judge’s unfavorable comments about the
    affiant’s parenting skills were formed over protracted litigation in which the judge
    had multiple opportunities to observe the affiant; therefore, the judge’s comments
    were not grounds for disqualification). Here, Judge Baronzzi claims that he
    formed his opinion about Trageser’s credibility as a result of her testimony at two
    hearings. Rather than reflecting bias, the judge’s language in his entry displays
    his rationale for denying her motion—that is, why he doubted the truthfulness of
    her allegations. On this record, Trageser has not sufficiently demonstrated that
    the judge’s language reveals that he has reached a fixed anticipatory judgment in
    the case.
    4
    SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
    {¶ 10} “The statutory right to seek disqualification of a judge is an
    extraordinary remedy. * * * A judge is presumed to follow the law and not to be
    biased, and the appearance of bias or prejudice must be compelling to overcome
    these presumptions.” In re Disqualification of George, 
    100 Ohio St.3d 1241
    ,
    
    2003-Ohio-5489
    , 
    798 N.E.2d 23
    , ¶ 5.           Those presumptions have not been
    overcome here. Accordingly, the affidavit of disqualification is denied. The case
    may proceed before Judge Baronzzi.
    {¶ 11} In addition, it is ordered that the sealed documents from the
    juvenile court that Judge Baronzzi submitted with his response to the affidavit of
    disqualification shall be placed under seal by the clerk of this court.
    ________________________
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-AP-112

Citation Numbers: 2013 Ohio 5899, 138 Ohio St. 3d 1210, 3 N.E.3d 1196

Judges: O'Connor

Filed Date: 12/2/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024