Title: In re Disqualification of Russo

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF RUSSO. 
WHITE ET AL. v. DERRICK, EXR., ET AL. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Russo (1997), 81 Ohio St.3d 1217.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification must be filed not less than seven days 
before next hearing, unless facts are set forth to show that it could not have 
been filed on time — R.C. 2701.03(B) — Reconsideration of first affidavit of 
disqualification not required when arguments are essentially restated. 
(No. 97-AP-107 — Decided September 30, 1997.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Cuyahoga County  
Court of Common Pleas case No. 302146. 
 
MOYER, C.J.  Affiant, Margaret Mary Meko, counsel for the defendants 
Ethel W. Derrick, executor of the estate of Milford Derrick et al., in the above-
captioned case, has filed a motion requesting reconsideration of an August 1, 1997 
entry denying her affidavit of disqualification.  Affiant raises two contentions in 
support of her motion:  (1) that affiant could not have timely filed her affidavit of 
disqualification prior to trial because of the seven-day requirement of R.C. 
2701.03 and, therefore, did not waive her objection to Judge Nancy Russo’s 
participation in the trial; and (2) that Judge Russo has prejudged issues related to 
affiant’s post-judgment motions and should be disqualified. 
 
Affiant’s first contention is not well taken.  R.C. 2701.03(B), which 
contains procedures to implement the authority granted to the Chief Justice by 
Section 5(C) Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, imposes a requirement that an 
affidavit of disqualification be filed “not less than seven calendar days before the 
day on which the next hearing in the proceeding is scheduled.”  However, the 
statutory time requirement has been held not to apply where the affidavit sets forth 
facts to show that it could not have been filed on time.  In re Disqualification of 
 
2
Badger (1989), 43 Ohio St.3d 601, 538 N.E.2d 1023, citing Bedford v. Lacey 
(1985), 30 Ohio App.3d 1, 30 OBR 38, 506 N.E.2d 224, and Household Consumer 
Discount Co. v. Pokorny (1978), 60 Ohio App.2d 253, 14 O.O.3d 232, 396 N.E.2d 
803.  Thus, affiant could have raised the issue of Judge Russo’s alleged bias and 
prejudice prior to the trial by filing an affidavit of disqualification and including in 
that affidavit the circumstances that precluded her from complying with the seven-
day requirement of the statute. 
 
Affiant’s second contention essentially represents a restatement of 
arguments made in support of her original affidavit of disqualification.  As these 
allegations previously were considered in ruling on the affidavit of 
disqualification, reconsideration of the August 1, 1997 ruling is not required. 
 
For these reasons, the motion for reconsideration is overruled, and the case 
shall proceed before Judge Russo.