Legal Question in Family Law in Florida

Party A, B and C appear before the court against Party D. Only A, B and D are listed Parties and C has filed a motion but has not requested to intervene. Party A and B filed the same motion previously before a predecessor judge. No substantial change has taken place. The predecessor judge ruled in favor of Party D both times. Within one month of leaving the bench and placement of a successor judge, party C filed the same motion requesting the same motion, but did not file a motion to intervene in the cause. The judge stated in the hearing that party C was in fact not a party but heard the motion anyway. Party D stated res judicata. The judge disagreed. The motion was heard on the same facts and evidence. Nothing new was brought to the table. Furthermore, the judge misinterpreted case law and statute. This misinterpretation was in favor of parties A, B and C. Parties A and B, both told the judge of the correct law and statute, that actually favored Party D. The judge then stated "that is not how I remember it" and continued with her interpretation. She ruled in favor of Party C's motion. (Objections were stated to all legalities)

Is this res judicata?

Should intervention have been required prior to hearing of motion?

What type of error is this misinterpretation?

Does notice of this error and failing to correct it during proceedings give ground for judicial bias and disqualification?

1 Answer from Attorneys

Related Questions & Answers

More Family Law, Divorce, Child Custody and Adoption questions and answers in Florida

Looking for something else?