A motion to disqualify the judge becomes moot when the judge is reassigned to a different division, under the Third District’s precedent, even if the judge’s ruling on the motion went further than it should have. The Third District Court of Appeal applied that rule on October 28, 2026, in Panov v. Panova, No. 3D2026-1965, and dismissed a petition for a writ of prohibition. Judge Miller wrote the opinion. Judges Fernandez and Lobree were on the panel.
The petition
The former husband, representing himself, asked the court for a writ of prohibition disqualifying the assigned trial judge from further presiding over his post-decretal dissolution proceedings. No appearance was entered for the respondent. The opinion does not describe the grounds in his motion.
What the trial court did wrong
The trial court denied the verified motion “on its merits.” The Third DCA agreed with the petitioner that this ruling “looked beyond the mere legal sufficiency of prejudice.” Citing Bundy v. Rudd and MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., the court said a judge who goes beyond the legal sufficiency of the motion has, on that basis alone, established grounds for his own disqualification. A footnote says there was no indication the judge was a successor judge under rule 2.330(i), which would have allowed a ruling on the truth of the facts alleged.
Motion to disqualify the judge: why the petition was dismissed. Seven days after denying the motion, the trial judge was reassigned to a different division. The court said that “under our precedent” reassignment renders the disqualification issue moot, citing its own 2019 decision in Polanco v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp. and the Fourth District’s decision in Reiser v. State. It dismissed the petition.
What this does and does not mean
The court found the trial court’s ruling procedurally improper but granted no relief, because the judge was no longer in the division. The opinion does not say whether the case remained with the new division’s judge, whether the petitioner could renew a motion to disqualify, or whether any claim of bias had merit. A mootness dismissal is not a ruling on the underlying allegations. The opinion is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is decided. The opinion prints its number as 3D26-1965.
Related decisions: Can a Court Make a Former Wife Sign a Quitclaim Deed After the Refinancing Deadline Passed? Not on This Judgment, the Sixth DCA Held Can You File a Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel Over a Fee Mortgage After 11 Months? Not on These Facts, the Third DCA Says
Read the opinion (PDF): Download the opinion (PDF)
Source: Panov v. Panova, No. 3D2026-1965 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 28, 2026). This article is general information, not legal advice.