Background
Edward Joseph Unger, the pro se former husband, appealed three orders entered by two judges in post-dissolution proceedings involving time-sharing for the parties’ children. The initial judge granted the former wife’s motion to hold him in contempt for willfully violating time-sharing orders and denied his motion to vacate. After that judge was disqualified, a successor judge denied reconsideration.
The initial judge entered the written contempt order after disqualification. The order included findings about the former wife’s 2021 move to Miami and the former husband’s earlier contempt motion against her, although those findings had not been orally announced at the 2025 contempt hearing. The written order also incorrectly stated that the former wife had not been found in contempt in 2021, even though the 2021 order found her in contempt for relocating to Miami-Dade County in violation of the parties’ agreement.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District held that a disqualified judge may perform the ministerial act of reducing a previously announced oral ruling to writing. But the judge may not make substantive changes or add details that were not included in the oral pronouncement; such additions exceed the ministerial-act exception and are void.
The court agreed that the two challenged findings had not been orally announced, but rejected the former husband’s argument that the entire contempt order was void and that he was entitled to a new hearing before another judge. Because the hearing transcript established what the initial judge had orally decided, the court reversed only to require the initial judge to vacate the 2025 written order and enter an amended order deleting the two unannounced findings. It otherwise affirmed and rejected the former husband’s remaining arguments.
Key Takeaways
- A disqualified judge may reduce an earlier oral ruling to writing only as a ministerial act.
- Findings or substantive details not orally announced before disqualification may not be added to the written order.
- When a transcript identifies the valid oral rulings, the remedy may be an amended order deleting unauthorized findings rather than vacatur of the entire ruling or a new hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that an order entered after judicial disqualification is not necessarily void in its entirety merely because it contains substantive additions. Florida appellate courts may preserve the portions that accurately memorialize the pre-disqualification oral ruling while requiring deletion of findings the judge lacked authority to add.
The court also again cautioned the pro se former husband about using artificial intelligence to prepare court filings, echoing a warning it had issued when striking his initial brief with leave to amend.