NITOF INC v. UNKNOWN HEIRS OF CECILE MCCARTNEY (2022)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

N. I. NITOF, INC., Petitioner, v. UNKNOWN HEIRS OF CECILE MCCARTNEY, deceased, Respondent.

No. 3D22-1387

Decided: September 30, 2022

Before SCALES, MILLER, and GORDO, JJ.

Rafael M. Rojas, P.A., and Rafael M. Rojas, for petitioner. Law Office of Attorney Ovide Val, and Ovide Val, for respondent.

Petitioner, N.I. Nitof, Inc., seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent the assigned trial judge from further presiding over the foreclosure proceedings pending below. His verified disqualification motion, deemed legally insufficient by the trial judge, alleged nothing more than adverse judicial rulings. As we have said before, it is a “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,’ ” for such rulings are reviewable otherwise. Quintas Vazquez v. Smith, 318 So. 3d 579, 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (quoting Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22, 31, 41 S.Ct. 230, 65 L.Ed. 481 (1921)); see also Hodges v. State, 327 So. 3d 923, 923–24 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). It naturally follows that a recitation of adverse rulings, without more, is insufficient to demonstrate the requisite bias or prejudice necessary to support disqualification. Accordingly, we conclude petition for prohibition fails to warrant relief.

Petition denied.

MILLER, J.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network