Case Title: In re Disqualification of Horvath

Citation: 2004-Ohio-7356

Docket Number: 04AP102

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-10-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Horvath, 105 Ohio St.3d 1247, 2004-Ohio-7356.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF HORVATH. 
CITY OF AVON LAKE v. ROMES. 
CITY OF AVON LAKE v.  SHMELTER. 
CITY OF AVON LAKE v.  DRWAL. 
CITY OF AVON LAKE v.  TETORAKIS. 
CITY OF AVON LAKE v.  KLEKOTTA. 
CITY OF AVON LAKE v.  KOBELAK. 
CITY OF AVON LAKE v.  KUEBLER. 
CITY OF AVON LAKE v.  ZITIELLO. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Horvath, 105 Ohio St.3d 1247, 
2004-Ohio-7356.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Disqualification denied, when. 
(No. 04-AP-102 — Decided October 26, 2004.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, 
Probate Division, case Nos. 2004-PC-6, 2004-PC-8, 2004-PC-9, 2004-PC-10, 
2004-PC-13, 2004-PC-15, 2004-PC-17, and 2004-PC-18. 
____________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶1} 
Attorney Gerald W. Phillips — on behalf of the defendants — has 
filed an affidavit with the Clerk of this court under R.C. 2101.39 and 2701.03 
seeking the disqualification of Judge Frank J. Horvath from acting on any further 
proceedings in case Nos. 2004-PC-6, 2004-PC-8, 2004-PC-9, 2004-PC-10, 2004-
PC-13, 2004-PC-15, 2004-PC-17, and 2004-PC-18 in the Court of Common Pleas 
of Lorain County, Probate Division.  Eight of the defendants have sworn similar 
affidavits as well, which are appended to affiant’s affidavit. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶2} 
Affiant and the eight defendants allege that Judge Horvath 
displayed hostility toward them at a recent pretrial conference.  The judge 
allegedly described the various appropriation cases listed in the caption above as 
trivial and demanded that they be settled.  Affiant claims that the judge has also 
criticized him for filing multiple pleadings late in the afternoon. 
{¶3} 
Affiant also alleges that the judge failed to act on pending motions 
for several months and then issued decisions on them shortly before a scheduled 
trial in one of the cases.  The judge displayed bias and prejudice by doing so, 
affiant claims.  He further alleges that the judge is also angry with affiant and his 
clients because affiant filed a mandamus and prohibition case challenging one of 
the judge’s rulings. 
{¶4} 
Finally, affiant notes that the judge received a $400 campaign 
contribution from the opposing attorney’s law firm in 2002, and affiant alleges 
that he saw the judge and the opposing attorney holding a very friendly 
conversation in March 2004. 
{¶5} 
Judge Horvath has responded to the affidavits.  He describes 
affiant as “ill-prepared” at the final pretrial conference, and the judge 
acknowledges that he “admonished” affiant “sternly” for that reason.  The judge 
denies that he has conveyed any fixed opinions about the merits of the case to the 
parties.  Any perceived difference in the judge’s treatment of the attorneys is 
attributable to the lawyers’ differing levels of pretrial preparation, he explains. 
{¶6} 
Judge Horvath also denies that any connection exists between 
campaign contributions on the one hand and his treatment of attorneys or his 
judicial rulings on the other.  And his longtime acquaintance with the father of the 
opposing attorney “is not responsible for Attorney Phillips’ lack of preparation,” 
the judge says.  He also denies that he holds any bias or prejudice in connection 
with affiant’s late-in-the-day filings at the probate court, and he says the same 
about affiant’s various legal challenges to some of the judge’s rulings. 
January Term, 2004 
3 
{¶7} 
I find no basis for ordering the disqualification of Judge Horvath.  
First, I see no bias or prejudice in the fact that the judge has not issued pretrial 
rulings as quickly as affiant would like.  A party’s disagreement or dissatisfaction 
with a court’s rulings of law, without more, does not demonstrate bias or 
prejudice.  In re Disqualification of Murphy (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 605, 522 
N.E.2d 459.  An affidavit of disqualification “is not a vehicle to contest matters of 
substantive or procedural law.”  In re Disqualification of Solovan, 100 Ohio St.3d 
1214, 2003-Ohio-5484, 798 N.E.2d 3, ¶ 4. 
{¶8} 
As for the judge’s comments about the prospect of settlement 
before trial, I have rejected in previous cases the kinds of concerns voiced by the 
affiant in this case.  As I have said, “A judge rarely hears preliminary aspects of a 
case without forming conditional opinions of the facts or law.  These conditional 
opinions often assist the parties and their counsel in identifying and narrowing the 
issues in controversy and facilitate the settlement of cases prior to trial.  However, 
the formation of these conditional opinions is not sufficient to counter the 
presumption of the judge’s ability to render a fair decision based upon the 
evidence later presented at trial.”  In re Disqualification of Brown (1993), 74 Ohio 
St.3d 1250, 1251, 657 N.E.2d 1353. 
{¶9} 
And to the extent that the judge’s comments at the pretrial 
conference reflected dissatisfaction with affiant’s pretrial preparation, those 
comments do not evidence bias or prejudice.  A judge is entitled to hold counsel 
to deadlines and to admonish attorneys who are not prepared for pretrial 
conferences or other events on the court’s calendar. 
{¶10} To be sure, “a judge, notwithstanding the conduct of litigants or 
counsel, has an ethical obligation to conduct himself or herself in a courteous and 
dignified manner that does not convey the appearance of bias or prejudice * * * .”  
In re Disqualification of Cleary (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 1220, 1222-1223, 723 
N.E.2d 1106.  In a disqualification case, however, my duty is to ferret out true 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
bias or prejudice.  In these various appropriation cases, the affiant’s description of 
the judge’s comments does not lead me to conclude that the judge has formed a 
fixed judgment, and I do not find that the judge holds any animosity toward 
affiant.  The judge may very well have indicated in strong words his 
dissatisfaction with affiant’s preparation, and he evidently also encouraged the 
parties to settle the cases, but the affidavits do not convince me that the judge will 
be unable to approach any further proceedings in the cases in a fair and impartial 
way.  The judge’s remarks to affiant discouraging him from filing documents at 
the probate court in the late afternoon do not reflect any bias against him, either. 
{¶11} Nor is disqualification warranted in these cases simply because 
affiant has pursued legal challenges to the judge’s rulings.  The affidavit does not 
suggest that the judge has ever expressed any dissatisfaction toward affiant as a 
result of his filing of appeals or original actions, and certainly affiant does not 
allege that the judge holds any pecuniary interest in the outcome of those appeals 
or other challenges. 
{¶12} And finally, neither the size of the $400 campaign contribution to 
Judge Horvath nor the timing and circumstances of its delivery suggest to me that 
the judge is biased or prejudiced in favor of opposing counsel.  The judge has 
evidently not said or done anything before or after receiving the contribution to 
suggest that the contribution would influence his judicial decisions, and I find no 
indication in any of the affidavits that it has done so.  The same is true of the 
judge’s friendship with the father of opposing counsel.  The affidavit does not 
indicate that the friendship has prevented or will prevent the judge from ruling 
fairly and impartially. 
{¶13} In sum, the affidavit does not contain evidence that would lead an 
objective, reasonable observer to harbor serious doubts about Judge Horvath’s 
ability to decide the cases impartially.  As I said recently, “[a] judge is presumed 
to follow the law and not to be biased, and the appearance of bias or prejudice 
January Term, 2004 
5 
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 in these cases. 
{¶14} For the reasons stated above, the affidavit of disqualification is 
denied.  The cases shall proceed before Judge Horvath. 
___________________