Opinion
No. 3D22-1387
09-30-2022
N. I. NITOF, INC., Petitioner, v. UNKNOWN HEIRS OF CECILE MCCARTNEY, deceased, Respondent.
Rafael M. Rojas, P.A., and Rafael M. Rojas, for petitioner. Law Office of Attorney Ovide Val, and Ovide Val, for respondent.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition. Lower Tribunal No. 22-0163 Rafael M. Rojas, P.A., and Rafael M. Rojas, for petitioner.
Law Office of Attorney Ovide Val, and Ovide Val, for respondent.
Before SCALES, MILLER, and GORDO, JJ.
MILLER, J.
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.