Case Title: In re Disqualification of Burt

Citation: 2013-Ohio-5898

Docket Number: 13-AP-111

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-12-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Burt, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2013-Ohio-5898.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF BURT. 
KING v. KING. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Burt, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2013-Ohio-5898.] 
Judges—Affidavit of disqualification—R.C. 2701.03—Existence of a friendship 
between a judge and a party will not disqualify the judge from cases 
involving the party—The fact that a party in a pending case campaigned 
for or against a judge is not grounds for disqualification. 
(No. 13-AP-111—Decided December 3, 2013.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Geauga County Court of Common Pleas 
Case No. 2007-DC-00470. 
____________________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Defendant Jennifer L. King has filed an affidavit with the clerk of 
this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge Forrest W. Burt from 
presiding over any further proceedings in case No. 2007-DC-00470, a divorce 
action pending on a postdecree motion in the Court of Common Pleas of Geauga 
County.  This is the second affidavit of disqualification that King has filed against 
Judge Burt in the underlying case.  Her first affidavit was denied by entry dated 
September 6, 2013, because the affidavit was not timely filed pursuant to 
R.C. 2701.03(B).  See affidavit-of-disqualification case No. 13-AP-085. 
{¶ 2} In her present affidavit, King claims that Judge Burt should be 
disqualified because plaintiff Philip King is the mayor of Chardon and a 
“colleague,” “friend,” and “political supporter” of Judge Burt, as evidenced by the 
judge’s campaign website, which lists Philip King as a supporter of the judge’s 
2012 campaign for judicial office. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 3} Judge Burt has responded in writing to King’s affidavit, averring 
that (1) while the common pleas court is located in Chardon, neither that city nor 
its mayor have any role in the management of the court, (2) while he and Philip 
King have attended the same civic and political events, they are not personal 
friends, and (3) Philip King was one of 50 public officials listed on the judge’s 
campaign website as endorsing his re-election, but the judge did not personally 
solicit that endorsement. 
{¶ 4} Contrary to King’s contention, none of the reasons listed in her 
affidavit are grounds for disqualification.  As Judge Burt explained in his 
response, he and Philip King are not colleagues because Philip King works for the 
city of Chardon.  Further, the judge denies that he and Philip King are friends, but 
even if they were more than mere acquaintances, Jennifer King’s allegation alone 
would not mandate the judge’s disqualification.  See In re Disqualification of 
Bressler, 81 Ohio St.3d 1215, 688 N.E.2d 517 (1997) (“mere existence of a 
friendship between a judge and an attorney or between a judge and a party will 
not disqualify the judge from cases involving that attorney or party”).  Finally, it 
is well settled that “the fact that a party or lawyer in a pending case campaigned 
for or against the judge is not grounds for disqualification.”  In re Disqualification 
of Cleary, 77 Ohio St.3d 1246, 1247, 674 N.E.2d 357 (1996).  Judges are 
presumed to be “able to set aside any partisan interests once they have assumed 
judicial office and have taken an oath to decide cases on the facts and the law 
before them.”  In re Disqualification of Bryant, 117 Ohio St.3d 1251, 2006-Ohio-
7227, 885 N.E.2d 246, ¶ 3; see also In re Disqualification of George, 100 Ohio 
St.3d 1241, 2003-Ohio-5489, 798 N.E.2d 23, ¶ 5 (“A judge is presumed to follow 
the law and not to be biased, and the appearance of bias or prejudice must be 
compelling to overcome these presumptions”).  Here, King has not set forth any 
evidence suggesting that this presumption has been overcome. 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
{¶ 5} Accordingly, the affidavit of disqualification is denied.  The case 
may proceed before Judge Burt. 
{¶ 6} In addition, King’s motion to stay all orders in the underlying case 
is denied.  Article IV, Section 5(C) of the Ohio Constitution and the relevant 
statutory provisions enacted pursuant to that provision limit the authority of the 
chief justice to passing on the matter of disqualification and, if necessary, 
assigning a replacement judge.  In re Disqualification of Celebrezze, 74 Ohio 
St.3d 1242, 1243-1244, 657 N.E.2d 1348 (1992).  It is beyond the constitutional 
and statutory authority given to the chief justice in affidavit-of-disqualification 
proceedings to void or stay orders issued by a trial judge. 
________________________