Case Name: Linda COUCHER, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. Margaret LICHT, et al., Respondents
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1999-05-07
Citations: 731 So. 2d 835
Docket Number: No. 99-463
Parties: Linda COUCHER, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. Margaret LICHT, et al., Respondents.
Judges: W. SHARP, HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 731
Pages: 835–835

Head Matter:
Linda COUCHER, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. Margaret LICHT, et al., Respondents.
No. 99-463.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
May 7, 1999.
Sallie D. Skipper of Law Office of H. Curtis Skipper, P.A., New Port Richey, and Lefferts L. Mabie, III, of Lefferts L. Mabie, III, P.A., Tampa, for Petitioners.
Frank A. Miller and David J. Day, of Caglianone & Miller, P.Á., Brooksville, for Respondent, Margaret Licht.
Michael A. Roe of Austin, Ley, Roe, Patsko, Swain & Diaz, P.A., Tampa, for Respondent, State Farm.
Alan D. Stewart, Tampa, for Respondent, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company-

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Linda, Peter and Phillip Coucher's petition for writ of prohibition seeks recusal of a trial judge. We find some of the allegations sufficient, and we grant the writ.
According to the Couchers' allegations, the judge commented several times about the veracity of a witness during a hearing on a motion for summary judgment. The judge also commented that he would do some research to try to figure out a way to disregard the witness's affidavit. We find these allegations were sufficient to create a well-founded fear in the mind of the petitioners (defendants below) that they would not receive a trial by an impartial tribunal. Kasser v. Woodson, 549 So.2d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) and Livingston v. State, 441 So.2d 1083 (Fla.1983).
PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED.
W. SHARP, HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.