Opinion
No. 1D20-1039
05-14-2021
Michael REUSCHEL, Appellant, v. Susan REUSCHEL, Appellee.
W. Charles Hughes of Siegel Hughes & Ross, Gainesville, for Appellant. Kevin D. Jurecko and Lauren A. McCord of Scruggs, Carmichael & Wershow, P.A., Gainesville, for Appellee.
W. Charles Hughes of Siegel Hughes & Ross, Gainesville, for Appellant.
Kevin D. Jurecko and Lauren A. McCord of Scruggs, Carmichael & Wershow, P.A., Gainesville, for Appellee.
Per Curiam.
Michael and Susan Reuschel are going through a divorce. Michael appeals the trial court's order that purports to grant Susan's motion to disqualify the law firm that had been hired to provide legal services to both the husband and Sapphire Dental, LLC, of which the husband is sole member. There is no dispute that Sapphire Dental is a marital asset. As it turns out, Michael is serving a thirty-year sentence for attempting to murder Susan—which of course prompted her petition for marriage dissolution—and the parties agreed to a court order appointing a custodian that would have sole authority to operate Sapphire Dental in the best interest of its members and creditors. The custodian decided to hire separate counsel, and the trial court in turn concluded that this development mooted any possible conflict of interest arising from the firm's representing both clients. We agree and affirm the trial court's ultimate determination of mootness—the trial court actually did not disqualify anyone. We offer no comment on whether there in fact was a preclusive conflict that would support disqualification in the future.
AFFIRMED .
Lewis, Tanenbaum, and Long, JJ., concur.