Case Title: In re Disqualification of Squire

Citation: 2003-Ohio-7355

Docket Number: 03AP108

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-12-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Squire, 101 Ohio St.3d 1226, 2003-Ohio-7355.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF SQUIRE. 
SNOW v. SNOW. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Squire, 101 Ohio St.3d 1226, 2003-Ohio-7355.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Affidavit of disqualification not timely, 
when. 
(No. 03-AP-108— Decided December 19, 2003.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in the Franklin County Common Pleas Court, 
Division of Domestic Relations, case No. 02DR062375. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶1} 
This affidavit of disqualification was filed by Eric Nordman, counsel 
for defendant, Sheri Snow, seeking the disqualification of Judge Carole Squire from 
further proceedings in the above captioned case. 
{¶2} 
The primary basis for affiant’s disqualification request is an allegation 
that his client filed a disciplinary complaint against Judge Squire on November 19 or 20, 
2003.  On November 24, 2003, affiant filed a motion with the trial court, seeking Judge 
Squire’s disqualification and then filed this affidavit one week later, on December 1, 
2003, which is the same day as the scheduled hearing in this matter. 
{¶3} 
R.C. 2701.03 provides that an affidavit of disqualification must be 
filed at least seven days prior to the next scheduled hearing in the pending case.  I have 
held that the seven-day filing requirement established by the General Assembly can be 
set aside where affiant alleges circumstances that demonstrate that compliance with the 
requirement was impossible.  In re Disqualification of Leskovyansky (1999), 88 Ohio 
St.3d 1210, 723 N.E.2d 1099, citing Household Consumer Discount Co. v. Pokorny 
(1978), 60 Ohio App.2d 253, 256-258, 14 O.O.3d 232, 396 N.E.2d 803. The most 
common claim of impossibility relates to instances of alleged bias or prejudice that arise 
fewer than seven days prior to the date of the scheduled hearing. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
{¶4} 
In this matter, the affidavit of disqualification and accompanying 
documents in this case suggest that affiant was aware of the primary basis for the 
disqualification request (i.e., the disciplinary complaint filed by his client) as early as 
November 19, 2003.  Yet affiant did not file his recusal motion with the trial court until 
November 24 and waited seven additional days, and the day of the scheduled hearing, to 
file his affidavit of disqualification. 
{¶5} 
These facts are nearly identical to those presented by In re 
Disqualification of Kontos (2001), 94 Ohio St.3d 1224, 763 N.E.2d 595. In Kontos, 
affiant had requested the judge’s recusal on three separate occasions and was aware of the 
judge’s intention to deny the requests and remain on the case.  Affiant filed an affidavit 
of disqualification one day prior to the hearing and claimed that he could not comply with 
the statutory filing requirement because it was not apparent until one day prior to the 
hearing that the affiant and judge could not resolve the alleged conflict of interest.  
Although Kontos encourages the resolution of potential disqualification requests prior to 
invoking the affidavit-of-disqualification procedure, the decision notes that these attempts 
must be made in consideration of the statutory filing deadline established by the General 
Assembly. 
{¶6} 
Like the affiant in Kontos, affiant here had ample opportunity to file a 
timely affidavit of disqualification as evidenced by his filing of a recusal motion in the 
trial court one week prior to the scheduled hearing.  His decision to wait another week 
before filing an affidavit of disqualification on the day of trial was not warranted based 
on the facts presented. 
{¶7} 
For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification was not timely filed 
and is denied.  The case shall proceed before Judge Squire. 
__________________