Douglas M. Wyckoff v. Melissa K. Cavanaugh f/k/a Melissa K. Wyckoff

PER CURIAM. Petitioner, the former husband in this post-dissolution proceeding, filed a petition for writ of prohibition to review the trial court’s order denying his verified motion to disqualify the trial judge. The motion alleged that the judge refused to allow Petitioner to cross-examine Respondent, the former wife, during an evidentiary hearing on the former wife’s emergency motion to temporarily suspend the former husband’s timesharing and visitation. We agree with the former husband that, based on this allegation, 1 the motion to disqualify was legally sufficient and should have been granted. See Wade v. Wade, 123 So.3d 697, 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (granting petition for writ of prohibition and explaining that the judge’s refusal • to allow a mother in a timesharing proceeding to con *166 duct cross-examination “denied the Mother a most basic right of due process and reasonably caused her to fear that she would not receive a fair and impartial hearing”); Zuchel v. State, 824 So.2d 1044, 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (granting petition for writ of prohibition and rejecting argument that the judge’s refusal to allow defense counsel to cross-examine the victim was merely a complaint about an adverse ruling because “the outright denial of the basic and fundamental right of cross-examination ... would give a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of judicial bias”) (citation omitted; emphasis in original). Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of prohibition and remand for the assignment of a new trial judge. 2 PETITION GRANTED. LEWIS, C.J., WETHERELL and RAY, JJ., concur. Footnotes [1] The other allegations in the motion are legally insufficient or untimely. See Jadcson v. State, 599 So.2d 103, 107 (Fla.1992) (holding that adverse rulings are not a legally sufficient basis for a motion to disqualify); Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(e) (requiring a motion to dis *166 qualify to be filed within 10 days after the grounds for the motion are discovered). [2] We have not overlooked Respondent's contention that the allegations in the motion are not an accurate description of what happened at the hearing and we find some possible support for this contention in the transcript excerpts filed by Respondent with her response in opposition to the petition for writ of prohibition. However, because we are required to accept the allegations in the motion as true, see Siegel v. State, 861 So.2d 90, 92 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citing MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So.2d 1332 (Fla. 1990)), we leave it to the Florida Bar to take appropriate action against Petitioner if it turns out that the allegations in the motion concerning the denial of cross-examination are refuted by the record and were merely a subterfuge to obtain a new judge in this proceeding.