Background
A political dispute over the election of a Republican State Committeeman led to litigation when Robert Burns filed a petition seeking to disqualify Randy Fine and Wayne Twiddy as candidates for the post. Tim Bobanic, the Brevard County Supervisor of Elections, moved to dismiss the petition. Following a hearing, the trial court dismissed Burns’s petition with prejudice.
The day after dismissal, Burns emailed the trial judge with screenshots allegedly showing Fine engaged in disruptive behavior—flipping a bird and making an “L” gesture toward Burns. The trial judge responded by issuing a show cause order for civil contempt against Fine. A hearing was scheduled for October 1, 2024.
At the contempt hearing, Fine’s counsel requested a continuance due to procedural concerns. The trial court denied the motion. During the hearing, counsel then requested a brief recess, stating he needed time to draft a written motion to disqualify the judge based on conduct that had occurred during the hearing itself. The trial court again denied the request.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s contempt finding. The court held that when grounds for judicial disqualification arise during a hearing, Florida law mandates a specific procedural protection: counsel may state the motion on the record but must promptly reduce it to writing and file it. Crucially, under Florida Rule of General Practice & Judicial Administration 2.330(g) and long-established precedent in Rogers v. State, 630 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1993), “a moving party ‘may request a brief recess—which must be granted—in order to prepare the appropriate documents.'”
Fine’s counsel clearly invoked this right by requesting a brief recess to prepare a written disqualification motion based on matters occurring during the hearing. The trial court’s denial of this recess violated established Florida law. The court found this error to be reversible per se and did not reach Fine’s remaining arguments on the merits of the contempt charge.
The appellate court reversed without remanding the case, instead vacating the contempt order entirely given the unique circumstances of the record.
Key Takeaways
- Trial judges must grant a recess when counsel requests one to prepare a disqualification motion for judicial conduct occurring during the hearing.
- The right to seek disqualification is a fundamental procedural protection that cannot be frustrated by denying adequate time to prepare required written documentation.
- Political disputes or contentious litigation do not justify bypassing procedural safeguards for disqualification motions.
- Reversal is required when a judge denies a request for recess to prepare a disqualification motion, without need to reach other issues.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that the right to seek judicial disqualification is not merely theoretical—it includes the practical right to obtain the time needed to memorialize grounds that become apparent only during the proceeding itself. By holding that trial judges lack discretion to deny such recesses, the court protects litigants from the Catch-22 of observing potential bias but lacking opportunity to document and file the required motion.
The opinion is notable for its firm application of procedural rules even in a politically charged case. By reversing cleanly without remand, the court signaled that denying a recess for disqualification motions is structural error requiring automatic reversal, regardless of the underlying facts or the merits of the contempt finding.