Case Title: In re Disqualification of Baronzzi

Citation: 2013-Ohio-5899

Docket Number: 13-AP-112

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-12-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Baronzzi, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2013-Ohio-5899.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF BARONZZI. 
GOOD v. TRAGESER. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Baronzzi, ___ Ohio St.3d ___,  
2013-Ohio-5899.] 
Judges—Affidavit of disqualification—R.C. 2701.03—Vague allegations of an 
appearance of impropriety are insufficient to demonstrate a “fixed 
anticipatory judgment” that undermines the public’s confidence in the 
fairness and integrity of the proceeding. 
(No. 13-AP-112—Decided December 2, 2013.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Columbiana County Court of Common 
Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No. C2012-0372, AB21230345. 
____________________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Defendant Charlotte Trageser has filed an affidavit with the clerk 
of this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge Thomas M. Baronzzi 
from presiding over any further proceedings in case No. C2012-0372, 
AB21230345, a child-custody case in the Juvenile Division of the Court of 
Common Pleas of Columbiana County. 
{¶ 2} Plaintiff filed his complaint in October 2012.  About a year later, 
Trageser filed a motion to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel, Tracey Laslo, arguing 
that Laslo had a conflict of interest because Trageser consulted with her in 2011 
about an unrelated divorce matter.  After a hearing, Judge Baronzzi denied 
Trageser’s motion in a November 1, 2013 judgment entry.  In her affidavit of 
disqualification, Trageser claims that the judge’s ruling on her motion, his 
conduct at the hearing, and the language in his judgment entry have created an 
appearance of impropriety requiring his removal from the underlying case. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 3} Judge Baronzzi has responded in writing to Trageser’s affidavit, 
averring that he harbors no bias against her. 
{¶ 4} For the reasons explained below, no basis has been established to 
order the disqualification of Judge Baronzzi. 
{¶ 5} “When an affidavit is filed after commencement of a trial and after 
the presentation of evidence has begun, a judge should be disqualified only when 
the record ‘clearly and unquestionably demonstrates a “fixed anticipatory 
judgment” * * * that undermines the absolute confidence of the public in the 
fairness and integrity of the proceedings.’ ”  In re Disqualification of Swift, 136 
Ohio St.3d 1273, 2013-Ohio-4464, 996 N.E.2d 939, ¶ 5, quoting In re 
Disqualification of Kate, 88 Ohio St.3d 1208, 1209, 723 N.E.2d 1098 (1999), 
quoting State ex rel. Pratt v. Weygandt, 164 Ohio St. 463, 469, 132 N.E.2d 191 
(1956).  Here, a merit hearing commenced on July 9, 2013, and after a full day of 
evidence, Judge Baronzzi continued the matter for a second merit hearing on 
November 26, 2013.  Accordingly, because the presentation of evidence has 
already begun, Trageser cannot rely on vague allegations of an appearance of 
impropriety to succeed on her affidavit.  Rather, she must demonstrate that Judge 
Baronzzi has clearly reached a fixed anticipatory judgment in the underlying case. 
{¶ 6} Trageser has failed to submit sufficient proof to carry this heavy 
burden.  First, her disagreement with Judge Baronzzi’s refusal to disqualify 
attorney Laslo is not grounds for disqualification.  Trageser criticizes Judge 
Baronzzi’s evidentiary rulings at the recent hearing, and she argues that he 
applied an incorrect legal standard in his judgment entry.  But it is well 
established that a party’s “dissatisfaction or disagreement with a judge’s rulings, 
even if those rulings may be erroneous, does not constitute bias or prejudice and 
is not grounds for the judge’s disqualification.”  In re Disqualification of Floyd, 
101 Ohio St.3d 1217, 2003-Ohio-7351, 803 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 4.  Trageser’s remedy 
for these legal claims, if any, lies on appeal, not through the filing of an affidavit 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
3 
 
of disqualification.  In re Disqualification of Russo, 110 Ohio St.3d 1208, 2005-
Ohio-7146, 850 N.E.2d 713, ¶ 6. 
{¶ 7} Second, the judge’s language in his November 1 judgment entry is 
also not grounds for disqualification.  In that entry, the judge stated:   
 
Ms. Trageser, previously within the custody case, has made 
allegations against the father of her child that he is an abuser of 
drugs and alcohol.  Upon further investigation of that allegation, it 
was found that the father tested negative for any evidence of drug 
abuse.  Furthermore, by Ms. Trageser’s testimony, she has very 
aggressively and defensively presented herself as self-righteous 
and the victim of virtually all persons with whom she has a 
personal or professional relationship in recent years.  The Court, 
quite frankly, does not find that there is credible evidence that Ms. 
Trageser has divulged to Attorney Tracy Laslo, by a prior meeting, 
any information regarding any personal or other details relevant to 
the issues before the Court for determination and the Court, 
therefore, concludes that the allegations are untrue. 
 
Trageser claims that the judge’s comments regarding the father’s alleged drug 
abuse show that he has reached an opinion on an ultimate issue of fact in the case.  
In response, Judge Baronzzi explains that in December 2012, Trageser accused 
plaintiff of abusing drugs, and the judge therefore ordered drug testing.  In 
January 2013, the results of plaintiff’s tests came back negative.  Thus, the 
judge’s comments in his November 1 entry appear to be stating a fact in the 
record, not an opinion on an ultimate issue of fact.  Accordingly, without more 
explanation from Trageser, her vague and unsubstantiated allegation here is 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
insufficient for a finding of bias or prejudice.  See In re Disqualification of 
Walker, 36 Ohio St.3d 606, 522 N.E.2d 460 (1988). 
{¶ 8} As to the other comments in the judge’s entry, Trageser states that 
one “would expect [the statements] to come from the opposing counsel, but to be 
uttered by a Judge in his ruling on a motion in the middle of a trial is without a 
doubt tainting the due process of a fair and impartial hearing.”  For his part, Judge 
Baronzzi explains that after observing Trageser’s testimony at both the hearing on 
her motion to disqualify Laslo and the July merit hearing, he had developed 
“significant concerns” regarding her “general veracity and/or motivations.”  He 
further explains that he was “candid and honest” with her in his findings that there 
was no credible evidence to support her motion. 
{¶ 9} Contrary to Trageser’s contention, a judge, like any trier of fact, is 
expected to assess a witness’s character and credibility.  In re Disqualification of 
Gaines, 74 Ohio St.3d 1259, 1261, 657 N.E.2d 1359 (1994).  And when a judge’s 
opinion regarding a party’s credibility is formed on the basis of evidence 
presented during the course of the proceedings, that opinion is not deemed to be 
the product of bias or prejudice.  See id. (judge’s unfavorable comments about the 
affiant’s parenting skills were formed over protracted litigation in which the judge 
had multiple opportunities to observe the affiant; therefore, the judge’s comments 
were not grounds for disqualification).  Here, Judge Baronzzi claims that he 
formed his opinion about Trageser’s credibility as a result of her testimony at two 
hearings.  Rather than reflecting bias, the judge’s language in his entry displays 
his rationale for denying her motion—that is, why he doubted the truthfulness of 
her allegations.  On this record, Trageser has not sufficiently demonstrated that 
the judge’s language reveals that he has reached a fixed anticipatory judgment in 
the case. 
{¶ 10} “The statutory right to seek disqualification of a judge is an 
extraordinary remedy.  * * *  A judge is presumed to follow the law and not to be 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
5 
 
biased, and the appearance of bias or prejudice must be compelling to overcome 
these presumptions.”  In re Disqualification of George, 100 Ohio St.3d 1241, 
2003-Ohio-5489, 798 N.E.2d 23, ¶ 5.  Those presumptions have not been 
overcome here.  Accordingly, the affidavit of disqualification is denied.  The case 
may proceed before Judge Baronzzi. 
{¶ 11} In addition, it is ordered that the sealed documents from the 
juvenile court that Judge Baronzzi submitted with his response to the affidavit of 
disqualification shall be placed under seal by the clerk of this court. 
________________________