Summary
disapproving an affidavit filed by the trial judge refuting facts as an attachment to his return to the appellate court's rule nisi in prohibition
Summary of this case from Valltos v. StateOpinion
No. 82-837.
May 25, 1982.
David F. Cerf, Jr., Stephen Cahen, Miami, for petitioner.
Horton, Perse Ginsberg and Mallory H. Horton, Miami, for respondents.
Before HENDRY, DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.
The rule disqualifying a trial judge who attempts to refute charges of partiality and thus creates an intolerable atmosphere between himself and the litigant, see Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440 (Fla. 1978); Management Corporation of America, Inc. v. Grossman, 396 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), is no less applicable when, as here, the trial judge's refutation (which not only set forth his version of the context — "a climate of levity" — in which his remark, arguably prejudicial to the plaintiffs, was made, but, moreover, contradicted the alleged substance of the remark) comes in the form of an affidavit attached to his return to our rule nisi in prohibition.
Accordingly, we must grant the petition for writ of prohibition. We deem it unnecessary to issue the writ and remand the cause to the Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.