Under Judge Ayers

Date

2024-05-22 -> ongoing

Actor

Judge Kelly Ayers, then Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

on the one issue this case turns on, from May 2024 through February 2025, the only sanction Wife's late disclosure drew was a fee entitlement that was never set.

What the law required

Rule 12.285 makes financial disclosure mandatory for both parties on fixed periods, and Rule 12.285(j) requires the producing party to certify under oath, in her own certificate, that the disclosure is “complete, accurate, and in compliance with this rule,” stating any exception “with specificity.” Section 92.525, Florida Statutes, puts that oath under penalties of perjury, so the certificate reaches exactly as far as its own words. Rule 12.380 supplies the consequence when a documented violation is put before the court.

What happened

On May 22, 2024 Wife stated in writing that she would supplement and amend her financial disclosures. The lawyers then stipulated a June 28, 2024 production date. Husband answered her three-year interrogatories on that date. Wife's disclosures ran about four months past it, and the compel order that followed was granted with a fee finding and never enforced (N-009).

Three compliance certificates followed, and the sworn words moved each time. The first, filed six days before the October 28, 2024 hearing, swears only that a list of documents is accurate to the best of the signer's knowledge. It never swears that the rule was complied with. The second, filed three days after that hearing, is verified the same way. Husband's December 2024 motion named the limit: the certificates "made no attempt to comply with the requirements in Rule FFLRP 12.285(j)"; they "only certify that Wife held no interest in any relevant accounts or assets in 'the last 12 months'"; "Wife is only swearing that she had no interest in relevant accounts from October of 2023 forward."

The third was filed twice, eleven minutes apart near midnight, about eleven hours after that motion was denied (N-029), under the court's direction that day to audit and amend and Wife's counsel's stipulation to use the rule's oath. It swears the disclosure is "complete, accurate, and in compliance with Fla. R. Fam. L. P. 12.285 unless otherwise specifically stated herein." What the document specifically states is a twelve-month window. The qualifier returns to the certificate whatever the certificate itself limits. Wife signed under penalties of perjury. The open question is how far the signature reaches, and a window fixed at "the last 12 months" moves forward with every month of delay. [EXCUSED]

Baseline deviation

Rule 12.285 binds both sides the same way, and the sworn certificate is the producing party's own accounting: it reaches only the periods and the items it names. When one party documents that the other missed the rule and puts that before the court, the rule supplies a consequence. This chain is one issue, one beneficiary, and nine months, all inside Judge Ayers's tenure, and the only consequence it drew was a fee entitlement that was never set.

Receipt

• Doc 156, the 5/22/24 supplement statement.
• Doc 155 Tr. 21:8-11 (transcript of the October 28, 2024 hearing), Samarkos, the June 28 date as "an agreement between Counsel"; Tr. 13:20-14:12 for Husband's answers on that date.
• Docs 044 p. 9 and 046 p. 9, the certificates of October 22 and October 31, 2024, each signed by Wife under section 92.525, Florida Statutes, "under penalties of perjury," e-signed 13:57 EDT and 09:30 EDT.
• Doc 054, the compel order, e-filed 11/20/24.
• Doc 084 paras. 15-17, 19, and 21, the quoted language-gap passages; para. 19, "six months late from the stipulated due date."
• Docs 124 and 125 p. 10, the two identical amended certificates of 2/12/25, Filing #216669496 at 11:15:25 PM and Filing #216669860 at 11:26:49 PM, same DocuSign envelope 0518E64D-6C12-4C6B-BDFC-A83E1B488B9A, each carrying the qualified oath quoted above.
• Doc 130, the written denial, 2/14/25.
• Doc 142, Husband's on-deadline certificate, 2/26/25.
• Doc 203 para. 5, the postmarital agreement signed 10/8/23 without financial disclosures. The record's own name for that instrument is the Marital Separation Agreement dated 10/8/23; "postmarital" and "post-marital" are aliases,.
• The nine-month span runs from the first enumerated event (5/22/24) to the last (2/26/25).
• Deliberately not counted in this chain: the post-disqualification conduct (N-047), the undecided prescribed motion (N-019, N-033), and the never-ruled objection to the second subpoena set (N-034).
• Related decision points: N-003, N-007, N-040.

Read the source document: Doc 155, Transcript of 10-28-24 hearing

Spawned by: N-006, N-007, N-009, N-016, N-029

This decision point also appears on: Under Judge Felix, the full ledger.

Date

2024-10-28

Actor

Judge Kelly Ayers

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

Wife's side was already late enough that a fee award had issued, then filed the court-ordered memorandum six days late over objection, and the sanction the rules provide for exactly that pattern, striking the objections, was never applied.

What the law required

A deadline the court sets binds both sides, and a paper filed late over objection is refused or its acceptance is explained on the record. Rule 12.380 supplies the escalating remedies for discovery that does not come, including an order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, Rule 12.380(b)(2)(C), the sanction Husband asked for in writing.

What happened

By October 2024 Wife's side had already been late enough on mandatory disclosure that the court granted a compel with a fee finding (N-009). At the October 28, 2024 hearing Judge Ayers took Wife's objections to the first set of Chase bank subpoenas under advisement and told both sides to submit the two agreements plus a short memorandum within ten days. The length of the deadline was Davis's own: the court said "whatever works with you," Davis said "Ten days is fine," and the court said "All right, 10 days."

Husband filed on day ten. Davis filed six days past the deadline, at 4:50 PM. Husband objected to the late memorandum, and then asked the court in writing to clarify "how the Court handled Mr. Davis's late filing." No ruling on that objection was ever entered. On December 13 the court's answer was: "this has already been argued. I have memorandums. I'm going to rule on the memorandums."

Documents were still being produced in increments while the compel order sat unenforced. The rules answer that pattern with escalating sanctions, up to striking the objections. That sanction was never applied, and no reason for it appears in the record as swept. The objections stood. The discovery did not come. The ruling that followed, announced by chambers email on December 16, made orally on December 19, and signed on December 30, did what the late memorandum asked (N-018). [EXCUSED]

Baseline deviation

A deadline the court sets binds both sides. When a paper comes in late and the other side objects, the court refuses it or says on the record why it is taking it anyway. Rule 12.380(b)(2)(C) lets the court bar a party who disobeys a discovery order from supporting or opposing designated claims, and Husband asked for that sanction in writing. A fee award for late disclosure was already on the books before this deadline was set, and the documents were still arriving in pieces.

Receipt

• Doc 047, Husband's memorandum, e-filed 11/7/24, day ten.
• Doc 053, Davis's memorandum, e-filed 11/13/2024 4:50:23 PM, Filing #210882545.
• Doc 155, transcript of the October 28, 2024 hearing, Tr. 22:24-23:21 for the instruction and the deadline colloquy, including Tr. 23:6-7 and 23:18-21.
• Doc 158, transcript of the December 13, 2024 hearing, Tr. 16:1-3 for the quoted ruling statement and Tr. 13:25-14:14 for the timeliness passage.
• Doc 098 relief para. F, the written clarification request. The earliest written flag is the 11/25 email filing at Doc 70, Filing #212769787, e-filed 12/12/2024 11:19:00 PM. Doc 091 Wherefore clause C repeats the request.
• Doc 093, the written order.
• Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.380 for the sanctions ladder and for striking objections as one of the available sanctions; the specific subdivision is not yet pinned.
• The already-issued fee award and the four-months-late production are at N-009.
• The reporter's garbled name "Soroka's" is preserved as printed; Merritt spells the same attorney "Samarkos."
• Related decision points: N-006, N-013, N-014, N-018.

Read the source document: Doc 155, Transcript of 10-28-24 hearing

Spawned by: N-006

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2024-11-20 (heard 10-28)

Actor

Judge Kelly Ayers

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

Husband won the order compelling Wife's financial disclosures, and in the twenty months that followed, through July 2026, no one ever made her comply with it and no court ever set the fee it awarded.

What the law required

Rule 12.285 makes disclosure mandatory and Rule 12.380 supplies the tools to enforce an order compelling it; the order here required full compliance within ten days and found a fee entitlement. An order is enforced when the movant shows the violation, and a fee entitlement is liquidated so that it operates.

What happened

Judge Ayers granted the motion to compel and the fee entitlement at the October 2024 hearing, and reaffirmed the entitlement twice on February 12, 2025. The written order was e-filed on November 20, 2024. At the hearing the disclosures the order compelled already stood about four months past the June 28, 2024 production date the lawyers had stipulated. The only consequence imposed for that lateness was fees, and the fee amount was never set by any court through July 2026. Actual compliance with mandatory disclosure was never required, and Husband's position is that the noncompliance is continuing. Husband has not yet enforced the fee award in his favor because Wife has still not complied with basic mandatory disclosures. [WON-THEN-NULLIFIED]

Baseline deviation

An order compelling disclosure exists to put documents in someone's hands; winning one should change what a party actually has. Judge Ayers marked the fee award as unusual for her: "you both know I very rarely give out fees. but this one." She never required actual compliance with mandatory disclosure, and the fee was never liquidated, so the order produced nothing. This is the anchor row of the excusal chain at N-004.

Receipt

• Doc 054 (the written order, e-filed 11/20/24).
• Doc 155 Tr. 18:19-25 (the oral compel grant that became that order) and Tr. 18-22 (the fee colloquy, including the quoted sentence at 22:22-25).
• Doc 152 Tr. 65:25 and 66:13-14 (the 2/12/25 reaffirmations).
• Doc 93, pulled from the Clerk, recites the hearing date on its face.
• Day and month spans are carded, not recomputed here.

Spawned by: N-006

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Read the source document: Doc 158, Transcript of 12-13-24 hearing

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2024-12-13

Actor

Judge Kelly Ayers

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

the rule puts the burden on the lawyer who wants to leave; the court demanded instead that the client produce a legal basis for keeping his own lawyer, kept the lawyer's stated reason free of any question, and made no findings when he asked for them.

What the law required

Rule 4-1.16(b) puts the burden of establishing a ground for withdrawal on the lawyer who wants out over the client's objection; the client carries none. A contested withdrawal is decided on the ground actually shown, with findings when a party asks for them, so the reason for removing counsel and for accelerating the hearing appears in the record.

What happened

Husband waived attorney-client privilege in writing the night before the hearing and again on the record that day, so nothing on his side was left to protect. His written objection, filed at 1:21 PM on December 13, 2024, demanded that the withdrawing lawyer finish five identified tasks and said "Mr. Davis should have to answer for what changed."

At the hearing that afternoon Judge Ayers cut off the prejudice argument: "I've already ruled." She deflected the notice-fairness question: "That's not the legal standard." She then put the burden on the client to supply a legal basis for keeping the counsel he had hired. The January 13, 2025 written order records the result in its own words: Husband "failed to establish a legal basis," and all other relief was denied.

On January 9, 2025 allegations he describes as repugnant were aired with no specifics attached, and he asked her directly for findings: "I deserve some findings of fact here." None were ever made. [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

Rule 4-1.16(b) puts the burden on the withdrawing lawyer and nowhere else. Determining that basis is what would have documented why the hearing was accelerated in the first place (N-014). Husband asked for findings on the record and again in writing; no statement of the basis appears in either transcript or in the order. The court also told Husband “You have nothing pending” while the first-set subpoena ruling sat under advisement and four of Wife's motions had been filed that morning (N-013).

Receipt

• Doc 158, transcript of the December 13, 2024 hearing, Tr. 16:21-25, 17:13-17, 17:19-24, and 18:5-9.
• Doc 109, transcript of the January 9, 2025 hearing, Tr. 13:23-14:5 and 18:6-15.
• Doc 098 paras. 8-11.
• Doc 072, the written objection of 12/13/24 1:21 PM: the five-task demand, the privilege waiver, and the quoted sentence about Davis.
• Doc 100, the written order of 1/13/25: "failed to establish a legal basis," all other relief denied.
• Privilege waiver, three independent sources: the on-record waiver at Doc 158 Tr. 4; the written waiver at Doc 167 p. 2; and the opposing side's own Doc 075 para. 7.b asserting that Husband "thereby waiv[ed] attorney-client privilege."

Spawned by: N-014

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Spawned by: N-006, N-007

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2024-12-19

Actor

Judge Kelly Ayers (prescription + post-filing confirmations) -> Judge Felix (non-adjudication)

Institution

13th Cir. Fam. Div.

Mechanism

the judge told Husband exactly which motion to file to get the financial records, he filed it in exactly that form, she confirmed on the record that it had worked, and as of August 2026, seventeen months on, no judge has ruled on it.

What the law required

Article I, section 9 and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). Rule 2.215(g)(1): “Every judge has a duty to enter within a reasonable time an order or judgment on every matter submitted to that judge.” Under Casto v. Casto the challenge itself carries the discovery entitlement, so a court that prescribes the motion, receives it, and confirms on the record that it changed the movant's position then decides it.

What happened

Across four hearings between December 19, 2024 and February 12, 2025, Judge Ayers told Husband what to file. In her words: "I just told you how to do your whole case. You need to file a motion." She also said "I'm not saying that again."

Under Casto no motion was legally necessary to open the discovery. The challenge itself carries the entitlement, and it attaches when the motion is filed rather than when it is granted. The prescribed route also required Husband to move against the Marital Separation Agreement dated 10/8/23, which on its terms protected his interests, and whose protection depended on the honest disclosure that never came. He filed it anyway, sixteen days after the last of those hearings. Following the court's own instruction produced no relief.

The route rested on both agreements at once. The ruling that limited discovery reached the premarital agreement of 10/25/16 as well, and that agreement does not reach marital income and assets, which is what the subpoenas sought.

After the filing she confirmed twice on the same day that it had changed his position (N-040). At the April 22, 2025 hearing she described the whole sequence herself: ".I think I did 'wink wink', you got to do something before I consider it and then you finally said oh, okay. I will try to set aside the postnuptial because that does change the trajectory of the discovery." Then she recused without ruling on it. Judge Felix has not ruled on it either. [IGNORED: the motion the court itself prescribed to resolve this case has never been decided]

Baseline deviation

A court that tells a litigant the specific step that unlocks relief, receives that exact step, and confirms on the record that it changed what he is entitled to, then decides the motion; every judge has a duty to rule within a reasonable time. The measure is the judge's own words across four hearings, her stated commitment to review the motion, and her two confirmations after it was filed, set against zero adjudication by anyone. Under Casto the filing itself carried the entitlement.

Receipt

• DIN 146, filed 2/28/25, with the Casto cite at para. 75.
• Doc 090, transcript of the December 19, 2024 hearing, Tr. 9:7-14 and 10:21-11:1.
• Doc 118, transcript of the January 21, 2025 hearing, Tr. 14:20-22 and 24:19-21.
• Doc 152, transcript of the February 12, 2025 hearing, Tr. 44:12-16, 48:11, and 50:10-14.
• Doc 198 Tr. 7:7-17 and 187:20-23.
• Doc 192, transcript of the April 22, 2025 hearing, Tr. 18:13-23 for the passage quoted above, and Tr. 29:6-22, "now you set up the posture for getting another bite at apple on your discovery."
• Transcript of the April 17, 2026 hearing, Tr. 114:10-13, 115:3-12, 116:9-11. The reference at that hearing to an order on the first-filed compel motion turned out to be illusory (N-090, N-033).
• June 10 corroboration at Tr. 110:17-111:4, where the entitlement-path arc was restated unchallenged.
• Naming: the record's exhibit list says "Marital Separation Agreement dated 10/8/23." Judge Ayers says "postnuptial" on the record.

Spawned by: N-018

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-01-09

Actor

Judge Kelly Ayers

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

Husband won his rehearing on paper, and by the day it was heard he had already lost his lawyer, answered the petition alone, and been served with a motion to default him.

What the law required

Article I, section 9 and the Fourteenth Amendment require notice and an opportunity to respond before counsel is removed over a client's objection, Garden v. Garden, 834 So. 2d 190, 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), and Rule 4-1.16(b) keeps the burden of justifying withdrawal on the lawyer. A rehearing granted on those grounds decides them, with findings when the client asks.

What happened

On January 9, 2025 Judge Ayers reheard the withdrawal and granted it again over Husband's objection. He had won the rehearing on paper: the court had stamped his motion GRANTED, setting it for hearing on the open docket. At the hearing the court told him he had not given a legal basis, acknowledged the one-day notice for the December hearing might have been too soon, cut him off mid-question with "Stop. Stop. Stop." and ended the hearing. She told him: "If you want to appeal me, that's fine. That's why they all have jobs." His grounds had been one-day-notice due process, absent findings, and prejudice. He is self-represented from here. [DENIED: the paper win arrived after the loss it was supposed to prevent]

Baseline deviation

A rehearing granted on due-process grounds decides those grounds: the one-day notice, the absent findings, and the prejudice, with the burden still on the withdrawing lawyer. This rehearing could change nothing. The relief had already operated: counsel was removed December 13, 2024, before his response was due, and he answered self-represented December 16 (N-013). No findings were made, and the attorney whose conduct triggered the sequence was absent and excused that day (N-022).

Receipt

• Docs 094 and 095, both slots holding Husband's 12/22/24 Rule 1.530 rehearing motion, Filing #213357446, stamped GRANTED with the quoted handwritten note, done and ordered 12/30/24 (the copy at Doc 094 mis-writes "25"; clerk stamp 12/31/24).
• Doc 109 Tr. 3:9-20, 8:6-9, 12:18-21, 14:5, 14:20-23, 15:22-24, 16:25, 17:5-9, 17:14, and 18:6-15.
• Doc 087 for the rehearing grounds, including Garden v. Garden and the 12/12 6:49 PM Dropbox transfer under twenty-four hours before the hearing.
• Tally guard: this is one withdrawal. The notice defect counts at N-014, the findings refusal at N-015, the fiduciary reversal at N-010, and the 2026 Bar-response chronology at N-083. No tally counts the withdrawal more than once.

Spawned by: N-014

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-01-09

Actor

Judge Kelly Ayers (excusing); Scott Davis (non-appearance)

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

the court answered a showing about opposing counsel's specific conduct with its own general impression of the lawyer, and the conduct in the case pending before her went unexamined.

What the law required

Canon 3D(2) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct: a judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer violated the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar “shall take appropriate action.” Canon 3B(7) accords every party the right to be heard according to law. A hearing on an attorney's alleged misconduct examines that attorney, and a party's objection to the accused's absence is ruled on.

What happened

The evening before the hearing Davis wrote to chambers that he did "not plan on attending." Husband demanded his attendance in writing three minutes later. Chambers said nothing. The email loop included Husband, so nothing about attendance was said off the record.

In the courtroom on January 9, 2025 Husband put Davis's obstruction on the record at length. The court did not take up any of it. It answered with its own impression of the lawyer: "I'm starting my fifth year in this division. I see Mr. Davis all the time," and "So the fact that you're telling me that all of these lawyers are talking to Mr. Davis and they're afraid and running from him is complete opposite of how Mr. Davis practices in front of me. He's like a good, old teddy bear."

On the absence itself the court supplied the excuse from the bench: "Because he's not required to come. he also has the right not to come." It confined the hearing to the withdrawal motion and told Husband "I cannot discuss the case with you because Mr. Davis is not present," Davis wrote afterward that "I did not wish to waste your wife's money by attending a hearing that was not pertinent to her case."

A specific-conduct showing drew a general impression. The conduct was never examined. [EXCUSED: the showing about the accused lawyer's conduct was answered with an impression of him, and the objection to his absence drew no ruling]

Baseline deviation

Canon 3D(2) puts the duty on the judge: when a litigant puts an officer of the court's conduct on the record, the court examines it or says why it will not, and it rules on the party's objection rather than deflecting it. Examining the accused attorney is what would have documented the obstruction Husband presented (N-011). A general impression of how a lawyer usually behaves is not a finding about what he did in this case. The same duty was declined again at N-023 and N-045.

Receipt

• Doc 109, transcript of the January 9, 2025 hearing: Tr. 3:4-5 (appearances), 4:8-12, 8:19-23 (the certification point Husband raised, which went unaddressed), 10:9-14, 11:4-7 (the confinement), 16:4-9 and 16:11-16 (the quoted vouching), 16:25, 17:14, 17:21-18:5 (the quoted excusal), and 18:6-8.
• Doc 118, transcript of the January 21, 2025 hearing, Tr. 4:3-7 and 26:2-5 for the echoes.
• Doc 110 image exhibits for the 1/8/25 5:51 PM email in which Davis said he did not plan on attending, the 5:54 PM attendance demand three minutes later, and the 1/10/25 reply. Davis also wrote that "your request for our attendance did not necessitate our attendance."
• The absence and the objection are docketed, not remembered. Doc 112, the first disqualification motion, e-filed 1/29/25 10:21 PM, sworn, stating the same facts. Doc 113, Wife's response at 2:53 AM the same night with a fee demand.
• Doc 098 (1/9/25 3:22 PM), the same-day receipt. Doc 097, the hearing memo, paras. 4, 6, 35, and 40.
• Pair the teddy-bear line with the 12/19 pre-affirmation at N-018 for the pattern. Its subject is the withdrawal rehearing and it never attaches to the certification point.
• Related decision points: N-007, N-014.

Spawned by: N-011

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-01-21

Actor

Judge Kelly Ayers

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

Husband had waived his own privilege on the record, in writing, and as Wife's own filing acknowledged; the court answered his request for inquiry into the call that preceded his lawyer's withdrawal with a privilege it assumed for the other side, which the other side had never claimed.

What the law required

Privilege protects communications between a lawyer and that lawyer's own client, section 90.502, Florida Statutes; a conversation between opposing counsel is an attorney-client communication for neither side, and the holder's express on-record waiver opens his own side's communications. Rule 4-1.16(b) put the burden of justifying the withdrawal on the withdrawing lawyer, and discovery into the call that preceded it was the relief Husband requested.

What happened

On January 21, 2025 Judge Ayers answered Husband's request to inquire into the call from Davis to his own then-counsel this way: "Well, I can assure you, even if you waived privilege, Mr. Davis wouldn't have been able to discuss what he discussed with your lawyers because his client, I'm assuming, didn't waive privilege." She added, "Attorneys a lot of times work together to get things done." Privilege was assumed for a party who never asserted it, on the court's own initiative, with no motion on the subject pending and no ruling entered. Husband objected to the premise on the record, and the objection drew a generality (Tr. 7:6-19).

That closed the loop. He was made to carry a burden the rule never placed on him, and the one avenue of proof he named was answered with an assumed privilege.

What sits on either side of the call is in writings on file. On October 21, 2024 his lawyer wrote: "This can be a long and difficult process but I assure you that you will get the answers that you need to move forward." Twelve days before this ruling, in open court and before this same judge, he described the change: "but for some reason, after each of my attorneys have had a conference with Mr. Davis, they went from, this is straight forward, we'll get you the records, to, I can't help you."

The one discovery ruling between those two positions went Husband's way: his motion to compel was granted October 28, 2024 (N-009). What changed was his own counsel's position. No party asserted a privilege, the inquiry never happened, and the conduct was never examined in any forum (N-045). [EXCUSED: the one conversation that preceded the withdrawal was answered with a privilege no party asserted, and the subject never returned]

Baseline deviation

Privilege protects what a lawyer and that lawyer's own client say to each other; a call between opposing counsel is an attorney-client communication for neither side, and privilege belongs to its holder. Rule 4-1.16(b) put the burden of justifying the withdrawal on the withdrawing lawyer. The court had already inverted that burden, demanding that Husband justify keeping his own counsel (N-015). Discovery into the call was how he proposed to carry the burden he had been handed, and it was the relief he asked for.

Receipt

• Doc 118, transcript of the January 21, 2025 hearing, Tr. 6:14-7:23, the full colloquy, quoted verbatim. The first quoted sentence ends at 7:4 and the second sits at 7:15-16. The exchange in which Husband objected to the premise is at Tr. 7:6-19.
• Complaint para. 111B(iv), as pleaded.
• Section 90.502, Florida Statutes, for the privilege definition.
• Waiver, three independent sources: Doc 158, transcript of the December 13, 2024 hearing, Tr. 4:19-24; Doc 167 p. 2, written, 12/11/24 11:17 PM; and Doc 075 para. 7.b, the opposing side's own assertion that Husband "thereby waiv[ed] attorney-client privilege."
• The 10/21/24 email at Doc 214 p. 1. Doc 087 p. 6 para. 35 refers to that email by date and time and reports it in Husband's own words. It is a corroborating reference, not a quotation.
• Doc 167 p. 3 for the written before-and-after rendering of the same change, in a December 11, 2024 email to the judicial assistant. Doc 112 para. 12.K for the sworn rendering. These are different renderings by the same speaker on different occasions and each is recorded as it was said.
• Doc 109, transcript of the January 9, 2025 hearing, Tr. 10:11-14, and Doc 192, transcript of the April 22, 2025 hearing, Tr. 40:13-18, both Husband speaking.
• Doc 115, the 2/12/25 four-motion agenda, frames what the 1/21 to 2/12 window was set to adjudicate.

Spawned by: N-015

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-02-05

Actor

Judge Kelly Ayers

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

the first sworn motion asking Judge Ayers to step aside pled a fear of an unfair hearing on specific facts, including Wife's counsel's absence from a hearing he was noticed for; it was found legally insufficient, and twelve weeks later the same species of motion was granted with its ground stated on its face

What the law required

Section 38.10, Florida Statutes, and Rule 2.330 entitle a party to an impartial judge; on an initial motion the judge determines legal sufficiency only, takes the sworn facts as true, and grants a facially sufficient motion (Rule 2.330(h); Berry v. Berry, 765 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)). The presumption runs to the movant, whose specifically described facts are weighed for sufficiency and never for truth.

What happened

On February 5, 2025 Judge Ayers found Husband's first disqualification motion "legally insufficient." The motion was sworn under penalty of perjury and pled that Husband feared he would not receive a fair hearing, on specifically described facts, among them that Wife's counsel, noticed for the January 9, 2025 hearing, did not appear over Husband's written objection and the court proceeded in counsel's absence (N-022). Husband moved to vacate on February 13. The February 17 order called the sworn allegations "unsupported" in the same sentence that assumed them true, and restated the finding of insufficiency. When the second motion was granted twelve weeks later, the granting order described itself as ruling on an initial motion, while its own caption calls it the second verified motion (N-047). [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

The disqualification rule is unusual: the presumption runs toward the movant, whose sworn allegations are taken as true, and the only question is whether the specifically described facts would give a reasonable litigant a well-founded fear. The comparison sits inside the same case: same movant, same species of sworn motion, opposite outcomes twelve weeks apart. The granted motion states its ground (N-047); the denied motion carried the January 9, 2025 hearing where the accused attorney did not appear and the court excused it (N-022).

Receipt

• Doc 112, e-filed 1/29/25 10:21 PM, sworn.
• Doc 119 (2/5/25), the denial. Doc 128 (2/13/25), the motion to vacate. Doc 131 (2/17/25), the Bundy and Hill rationale.
• Doc 184 for the initial-versus-second inconsistency. Rule 2.330.

Spawned by: N-022

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-02-10

Actor

Judge Kelly Ayers

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

Husband's challenge to the order that killed the bank subpoenas was set for hearing; two days before it, the court denied the parent motion on paper, which mooted the motion set for hearing; the written order denying it as moot was entered the evening of the hearing.

What the law required

Article I, section 9 guarantees an opportunity to be heard, and Canon 3B(7) requires a judge to accord every party “the right to be heard according to law.” A motion noticed for an evidentiary hearing is heard at that hearing, where the record a reviewing court later reads is made.

What happened

The hearing was set for February 12, 2025. On February 10 at 5:05 PM Judge Ayers denied the parent motion on paper. On February 12 at 5:24 PM, the evening of the hearing, she entered the written order denying the motion actually noticed for that hearing as moot, on the ground that the February 10 order "rendered this Motion moot." At the hearing, the court told him: "Mr. Davis just brought to my attention that when I ruled on the motion for rehearing yesterday this deemed this moot and he's correct. So next." (Tr. 56:3-10.) The whole challenge chain, the December 30 order, the clarification motion, and the rehearing motion, was extinguished in about forty-eight hours. No step in it engaged the merits. Husband objected in writing at the time, saying the sequence was "robbing Husband of the chance to create a record." The same February 10 order also denied his continuance request by quoting his own complaints about delay back at him. [DENIED: the challenge was closed on paper before the hearing that would have made the record]

Baseline deviation

A motion noticed for an evidentiary hearing is heard at that hearing, which is where a litigant makes the record an appellate court later reads. Deciding it on paper beforehand removes the record the hearing existed to produce. The hearing here would have tested the December 30 order that killed the bank subpoenas (N-018). In the same fortnight, the same court carried Wife's own motion to compel all the way to a merits order.

Receipt

• Doc 127 (order, 2/10/25 5:05 PM, stamp), denying Doc 098.
• Doc 129 (order, 2/12/25 5:24 PM, stamp), denying Doc 091 as moot in the quoted words.
• Doc 115, the notice setting DIN 91 for 2/12. Doc 128 para. 10, the contemporaneous objection quoted above.
• Doc 138 (2/19/25), Wife's compel granted in part in the same fortnight. The 2/12 transcript memo corroborates.

Spawned by: N-018

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-02-12

Actor

Judge Kelly Ayers

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

Husband sought enforcement and contempt for past noncompliance with an existing disclosure order; the court denied that motion and allowed another opportunity to comply.

What the law required

Rule 12.285(j) requires the producing party to certify under oath that her disclosure is “complete, accurate, and in compliance with this rule,” and to state any exception “with specificity” in the certificate itself; Rule 12.285(e) fixes the documents and periods, keyed to her own financial affidavit. The accounting is hers to give. An existing order compelling compliance is enforced under Rule 12.380 on the movant's motion, and the ruling answers the relief that motion sought.

What happened

The court had already ordered Wife to comply fully with mandatory disclosure within ten days of the October 28, 2024 hearing. Husband's December 18 motion sought immediate compliance, contempt, sanctions, and fees for the alleged continuing violation.

At the February 12, 2025 hearing, Judge Ayers denied enforcement and contempt without prejudice, then directed an audit and correction, ultimately allowing until February 26. The February 14 written order based the denial on Husband's failure to identify an unproduced document required by Rule 12.285(e). Separately, it allowed a new motion identifying such a document. For that later motion, Wife would have twenty days to produce the document if it existed and the rule required it.

Wife's side also agreed to amend the financial-disclosure certificate to expressly swear completeness. That agreement concerned future correction, not consequences for the alleged past violation. The second-amended certificate filed the night of February 12 did not turn the denied enforcement claim into a grant of accountability. The written order made no contempt finding and imposed no new sanction. [DENIED: enforcement and contempt denied without prejudice]

Baseline deviation

The existing disclosure order was the starting point, not a new obligation awaiting another request. Husband sought both compliance and consequences for the alleged earlier violation. Another opportunity to audit, produce, or amend addresses future compliance; it does not answer whether the earlier violation warranted contempt or sanctions. The ruling must be measured against the relief the pending motion sought, not recast as a partial victory because an amendment followed.

Receipt

• Doc 054, Order Granting Motion to Compel, entered November 20, 2024, pp. 1-2, paragraphs 2-3: full compliance within ten days of the October 28 hearing; fee entitlement for earlier untimely disclosure, amount reserved.
• Doc 084, filed December 18, 2024, paragraphs 9, 15-21 and 24-26; prayer A-D: enforce the existing order, require sworn compliance, find contempt, impose sanctions, permit Chase subpoenas, and award fees/costs.
• Doc 152, February 12 hearing, Tr. 30:7-23 and 31:24-32:22: denial, audit/correction directions, and extension to February 26. Tr. 69:17-25 and 70:19-25: continued request for consequences; Wife's side agrees to amend oath language; court describes the amendment as stipulated rather than its ruling.
• Doc 130, February 14 order, findings A-B and paragraphs 1-5: denial without prejudice; conditional new-motion/twenty-day production procedure; preservation of unmodified orders; Wife's stipulation to amend the oath. No new contempt finding or sanction. The original fee entitlement was not rescinded.
• Docs 124/125, second-amended certificate filed February 12, p. 10: express completeness oath. Agreement to amend is not an admission of every alleged defect or a finding that disclosure was complete.
• Doc 145, February 26 motion to vacate, paragraphs 2, 4, 36 and 39-44: continuing challenge to the certificate's scope after amendment.
• March 17 certiorari petition, internal pp. 14-15, 22, 24, 27 and 29-30: scope, notice, prejudice, and requested enforcement relief.
• Related decision point: N-009.

Spawned by: N-009

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-02-18

Actor

Judge Kelly Ayers

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

an order to show cause backed by an arrest warning issued against both parties without naming a single email, date, sender, or count, and a hearing on it had already been noticed before the order existed.

What the law required

Article I, section 9 due process: an order that puts a person at risk of arrest tells him what he is said to have done and rests on specific findings about that conduct, which Husband asked for in writing. Canon 3D(2) directs the judge's action to the lawyer whose conduct was reported; the reporting party answers for his own conduct, if any is named.

What happened

On February 7, 2025, Davis's email inserted the word bat into Husband's ball-and-go-home phrase and added a defamation warning about publishing. Husband objected that it was at least the second time Davis had alluded to violence. Davis answered: "The only time I would engage in violence is if it were necessary in self defense". Eleven days later Judge Ayers entered an order to show cause directing both parties to appear under an arrest warning; a hearing on it had already been noticed before it was signed. She reset it twice, heard it April 22, 2025 without evidence, with Wife excused over objection, made no findings, imposed only an email-only limit on Husband, and told him: "Do you realize you just won this hearing?" Davis's response had converted the order into a request to restrict Husband's emails. [EXCUSED: the email came from Wife's counsel, who drew no consequence]

Baseline deviation

An order that puts a person at risk of arrest tells that person what he is said to have done, and Husband asked in writing for specific findings about the emails and conduct behind it. This order names no email, date, sender, or count; its only finding is volume, given three times. The email described below came from Wife's counsel, who drew no consequence, while the order issued against both parties, including the one who had objected to that email.

Receipt

• Doc 137 exhibits pp. 5-8, the complete 2/7/25 email chain quoted above in both directions, including Davis's follow-up "I don't even own a bat."
• Doc 120 p. 3, Husband's contemporaneous characterization.
• Doc 136 (2/18/25), the order to show cause on the court's own initiative, with its only finding that "Counsels for the Parties are engaging in an extraordinary exchange of email communications between themselves and the Parties between the Judicial Assistant to the undersigned."
• Doc 141, the amended order resetting to 4/3/25, the eve of the 4/4 hearing. Doc 135, Davis's response and email-restriction request.
• Doc 123 (2/12/25 3:03 PM), noticing a 2/25 hearing on an order "to be entered by the Court prior to February 25"; Doc 136 was entered 2/18/25; Doc 123's footnote 1 is the email-restriction receipt.
• Doc 192 Tr. 4:5-9 for the court's own 4/22/25 explanation, Tr. 46:5-22 for the email-limit ruling as corrected, and Tr. 46:24-25 for the quoted "won this hearing" line.
• Doc 198 Tr. 4:19-24 and 180:9-24 for the 4/4 roadmap placement and the reset.
• Docs 133 and 134, the Zoom-deposition order granted without hearing on unspecified good cause, and the document tying it to the 2/7 email.
• Related decision points: N-014, N-022.

Spawned by: N-011

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-03-02

Actor

Judge Ayers then Judge Felix

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

Wife objected to the second set of bank subpoenas and told the court a fifteen-minute hearing would resolve it; as of September 23, 2026 the objection had gone 570 days without a ruling, blocking the records that whole time.

What the law required

Rule 12.351 governs production from non-parties: a party's timely objection under subdivision (b) stops the subpoena until the court rules on it under subdivision (d), so an objection never ruled on operates as a quash no judge signed. Rule 2.215(g)(1): “Every judge has a duty to enter within a reasonable time an order or judgment on every matter submitted to that judge,” with monthly reports to the chief judge of every matter held under advisement more than 60 days. The objection is Wife's instrument, and she asked for the expedited hearing herself.

What happened

Husband refiled the Chase subpoenas February 28, 2025, the day he filed the motion that was the route to that discovery (N-033). Wife objected two days later, asked in the same paper that Husband be sanctioned and that she be awarded fees, and sought an expedited hearing, writing that "the undersigned attorney believes that this issue can be resolved by the Court at the conclusion of a 15-minute hearing." No order has ever ruled on that objection. Husband moved for an immediate ruling June 28, 2025; the court's entire answer was a form order checking one box: "The matter is not an emergency and should be handled in the normal course." At the June 3, 2025 venue hearing Husband asked the successor judge to order the pending subpoena; Wife's counsel objected that the request was outside the noticed motion, and no ruling was made. More than a year later, Wife's own notice sets Husband's June 2025 motion among ten matters for October 9, 2026. [IGNORED: an untested objection has functioned as a quash no judge ever signed]

Baseline deviation

An objection to a non-party subpoena stops it until the court rules; until then the records stay blocked and no judge passes on whether the objection was any good. Wife's objection is her own instrument; she asked for the expedited hearing herself, and years of non-ruling have given her its benefit without ever carrying it. The first set of subpoenas at least drew an order (N-018). This set has drawn nothing, over records both sides call the financial center.

Receipt

• DIN 147 (JPMorgan Chase, Filing 217820385, 2/28/25 1:49 PM) and DIN 148 (Chase Bank, Filing 217820597, 1:51 PM), each with the Exhibit A scope quoted above.
• DIN 149 (Filing 217872880, 3/2/25), the objection, paras. 17-18, including her own para. 17 calling these Husband's "latest" notices.
• DIN 209 (6/28/25) para. 32. DIN 210 (6/30/25), the checked-box form order.
• Doc 212, transcript of the June 3, 2025 hearing, Tr. 16:19-17:3.
• DIN 361, Wife's 7/30/26 notice for the 10/9/26 setting, still listing DIN 209.
• Doc 93's decretal para. 2 names DIN 28 and 29 only, and Set 2 was filed sixty days after it was signed.
• Day counts in the card: 535 days from 2/28/25 and 533 days from 3/2/25, both to 8/17/26, per ledger sec. 3e; recompute at use.

Spawned by: N-018, N-033

This decision point also appears on: Under Judge Felix, the full ledger.

Date

2025-03-04

Actor

Judge Kelly Ayers

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

in the same fortnight, Wife's motion to compel was granted in part with a deadline attached, and Husband's motion attacking the orders that left him with no disclosure came back to him as his own paper with the word DENIED stamped on it.

What the law required

Rules 12.530 and 12.540(b)(1) let a party seek rehearing and relief from an order entered on mistake; a motion invoking them against an order that excused sworn compliance with Rule 12.285(j) is decided on a basis a reviewing court can examine. The same court, in the same fortnight, processed Wife's compel motion to a merits order with a deadline.

What happened

Husband filed his Motion to Vacate on February 26, 2025, aimed at the orders that left him without mandatory-disclosure compliance. It came back as the same paper, stamped "DENIED", March 4, 2025, Kelly Ayers, with no findings and no reasoning. He met the deadline the court had set on his own side: his sworn compliance certificate, one page, was filed on that same February 26 date. [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

Rules 12.530 and 12.540 exist so an order entered on a mistake can be corrected, and a ruling on that motion states a basis, since the basis is the only thing a reviewing court can examine. A stamp gives none. Both sides sought the same relief in the same two weeks before the same judge; only one side's was processed on the merits. The motion here targeted the order denying Husband's enforcement motion on a naming technicality (N-029). A stated basis would have documented why that denial stood.

Receipt

• Doc 145 (the 2/26/25 motion).
• Doc 151 (the same paper returned stamped "DENIED" 3/4/25, stamp).
• Doc 130 (2/14/25), the denial the motion targeted.
• Doc 138 (2/19/25), Wife's compel granted in part with a comply-or-object deadline.
• Doc 142, Husband's sworn compliance certificate filed on the 2/26/25 deadline, verified 8/7/26.

Spawned by: N-029

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-04-01

Actor

Judge Kelly Ayers (rescission and non-engagement); Scott Davis (the default)

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

the court asked Wife's lawyer in writing to summarize her testimony, he promised it the same day and never sent it, and the court told its own assistant not to remind him.

What the law required

A parent's interest in the care, custody, and control of his children is a fundamental liberty interest protected by Article I, section 9 and the Fourteenth Amendment. The movant for a guardian ad litem under section 61.401, Florida Statutes, carries the burden of showing cause for the appointment; the opposing parent's filed objections are engaged, and his opportunity to present evidence is part of due process.

What happened

On April 7, 2025 the court emailed Davis asking for a written summary of Wife's testimony while preparing its orders. He answered the same day that he was happy to and would need a couple of days. Nothing came in eight days. On April 16 the court's own order erased the ask: "No summaries have been provided to the Court. No summaries are being requested by the Court." Orders were prepared from the April 4 record anyway. On the other side of the same file, Husband's filed oppositions about the children were never engaged, including his statement that "Dragging happy, healthy, thriving children back into a conflict is counter-intuitive and cruel." His April 15 motion was never ruled on. The guardian ad litem was appointed fourteen months later with no finding of unfitness (N-125). [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

A parent's right to the care of his children is a fundamental liberty interest, and the party asking a court to reshape that relationship carries the burden of showing cause. The court asked the movant to put her basis in writing, and she was clear the ask was a request, not an order: “It wasn't order.” On the other side of the file, Husband's documented objections about the children drew no ruling. The court required nothing of the movant and engaged none of the objector's points.

Receipt

• Doc 169 (4/1/25, Filing #220088124), the welfare showing including the Elovitz "Be Wary of Saviors" guardian-ad-litem risk literature.
• Doc 173 (4/7/25 11:22 AM), paras. 5, 10, 14, and 25 for the quoted passages.
• Doc 177 (4/15/25) para. 11 for the quoted sentence.
• Doc 182 (order, 4/16/25) for the quoted rescission.
• The 4/7 email pair is preserved inside Docs 173 and 177.
• Doc 192 Tr. 51:11 for "It wasn't order" and for the judicial assistant instruction, "I actually said to Dee Dee, don't give him a reminder," with the court's own stated explanation in the same passage.
• Caution: Doc 169's certificate carries a stale "13th day of December, 2024" template date, and Doc 177 says "April 3" where Docs 173 and 182 fix the hearing as 4/4.
• Additional oppositions never engaged: cross-examination not completed; no affidavits, police reports, or teacher emails existed; and that there was "nothing that approaches any reasonable concern about Husband's parenting ability."
• Related decision points: N-041.

Spawned by: N-041

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-04-04

Actor

Judge Kelly Ayers

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

thirty-five days after Husband filed the motion the court itself had told him to file, the judge said on the record that he had "now opened a door to entitle yourself to more evidence"; twenty-four days after that she recused, without ruling on it.

What the law required

Article I, section 9 and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), and Rule 2.215(g)(1) makes every judge's duty to rule within a reasonable time explicit. A court that confirms on the record that a filed motion changed the movant's entitlement then decides that motion; confirmation without adjudication is its own decision point.

What happened

Judge Ayers prescribed the motion across four hearings (N-019). Husband filed it in exactly the prescribed form. On April 4, 2025 she confirmed twice on the record that it had changed his position, telling him: "You have now opened a door to entitle yourself to more evidence", and confirmed the filing itself and that the motion was going to open up the discovery. No adjudication ever followed, from her or anyone. She recused about April 28, 2025 with the motion unruled, and it is still unruled. A different set of events from the same hearing day, the courthouse video Judge Ayers volunteered and then declined to pursue, is carded separately at N-042. [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

A court that confirms on the record that a filed motion changed what a litigant is entitled to has to decide that motion within a meaningful time. Confirmation without adjudication is its own decision point: nobody can say the motion was insufficient when the judge who prescribed it said on the record that it had worked. The recusal left the confirmed and undetermined motion in the hands of a successor who has now carried it for months on end (N-033).

Receipt

• Doc 198 Tr. 7:7-17 (the key phrase sits at 7:13-14), 187:20-23, 188:9-14, and 191:7-9 (also carrying "that will probably be open to you now receiving that discovery," "You have it filed," and the "going to open up the discovery" characterization).
• DIN 146, filed 2/28/25.
• Recusal lineage at Docs 184 and 187; Doc 187 is Judge DePaul's own recusal order, not an Ayers instrument (N-047).
• Day count: 535 days as of 8/17/26.

Spawned by: N-019

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-04-04

Actor

Judge Kelly Ayers

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

the court gave the day to the motion questioning Husband as a parent and pushed the discovery two months out, and in four years the only documented concern about either child was that each had once seemed tired.

What the law required

Article I, section 9 and the Fourteenth Amendment: a parent facing a motion that reaches his children is heard with the evidence he identified as necessary to defend it. The movant carries the burden of showing cause for a guardian ad litem under section 61.401, Florida Statutes. Discovery a court has itself tied to the merits is resolved before the merits it feeds.

What happened

On April 4, 2025 Judge Ayers put Wife's guardian ad litem and psychological-evaluation motions first and confined the day to the children. Husband's position, held since the guardian ad litem motion was filed, was that he needed the discovery to prove the retaliatory motive, and he argued on the record that his pending discovery fed the guardian ad litem question itself. The school administrator who testified that day said that in four years the only documented concern about either child was one notation that each had seemed tired. Wife's entire showing went to Husband, not to the children. The court twice announced it would rule on the guardian ad litem that day. It ended the day with no rulings at all and deferred discovery wholesale to June 10. The guardian ad litem request became an ultimatum: mediate, or take less than fifty percent. [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

Discovery that feeds a motion's merits is resolved before the motion, above all where the court itself has conditioned the discovery on a merits ruling (N-018, N-019) and the movant carries the burden of showing cause for the appointment she seeks. Here the court advanced the merits instrument ahead of the discovery relevant to it. Taking discovery first would have documented the factual predicate of the guardian ad litem motion, which alleged no incident, no date, no observation, and no witness (N-001).

Receipt

• Doc 198 Tr. 8:21-25 and 136:8-13 (the roadmap); 100:19-25, 101:3-13, and 115:12-14 (the discovery-first argument and the confinement of the day); 116:16-20 and 136:15-17 (the rule-today announcements); 193:18-20 (no rulings); 185:2-8, 188:15-17, and 191:16-18 (the deferral to June); 170:19-23 and 173:2-4 (the ultimatum); 20:10-14 (the tired-notation testimony); 68:2-3 (the court on chronic depression).
• Born-digital text layer, twenty key pages.
• The school administrator's April 4 testimony also appears at N-043 and at FNEW-W1.

Spawned by: N-001

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Spawned by: N-018

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-04-04

Actor

Judge Felix

Institution

24-DR-001150

Mechanism

the cooperative route to what the children's school knew was refused in writing, so the school was subpoenaed under a contempt warning, and the compelled witness said nothing had been documented about either child in four years beyond one instance of seeming tired.

What the law required

Section 61.401, Florida Statutes, lets a court appoint a guardian ad litem, on a best-interest finding, to gather information about the children; the movant carries the burden of showing cause, and the parent's fundamental liberty interest (Article I, section 9; Fourteenth Amendment) means the appointment rests on findings. A less intrusive route to the same information, put on the record, is reached: adopted, rejected for a stated reason, or addressed by a finding.

What happened

Husband sought agreement from Wife's counsel that the children's school complete wellness forms; the school itself had named simple party agreement as one of three routes to its participation. Counsel substituted the still-pending guardian ad litem instead: "The Guardian Ad Litem, if appointed, will make those determinations and/or recommendations." No answer came to Husband's question of what the downside of trying the questionnaire first would be. The cooperative route was refused in writing (N-036), and the school was subpoenaed under a contempt warning instead. On April 4, 2025 the school's director testified that in four years nothing was documented about either child's health or welfare beyond one occasion each of seeming tired. Both of Husband's attempts to ask her about the forms request were objected to and sustained. He raised the point again on April 17, 2026 before Judge Felix; the court has not addressed it since. [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

A guardian ad litem is appointed to obtain information about the children's circumstances, on the movant's showing of cause. A less intrusive route to the same information, offered on the record, is adopted, rejected for a stated reason, or addressed by a finding; this drew none of the three. The school named three ways to participate, one being simple agreement. Husband sought that in writing; it was refused in writing. What remained was the route carrying a contempt warning. The order issued later contains no finding on it (N-125).

Receipt

• Doc 165, the subpoena, dated 3/24/2025 and e-filed 3/25/2025, pp. 1-3; cited by docket entry and date only, because the map withholds what the instrument names.
• Doc 166 pp. 3, 4, and 6, the 3/18 and 3/24/2025 emails including the quoted refusal, which carries a 2:20:05 PM stamp.
• Doc 134 pp. 10-12, the complete 2/7/2025 exchange with Davis.
• Doc 117 pp. 7-9, Husband's 2/7/2025 request and the judicial assistant's 2/10/2025 reply.
• Doc 198, the certified 4/4/2025 hearing transcript, at Tr. 12, 18, 20, 28, and 29. The 4/17/2026 transcript at Tr. 119:6-8 and 125:21-25.
• The school's own reply of 3/6/2025 at 8:54 AM.
• Every decision point here sits in the Ayers era; she recused 4/28/25, and the later consequences run into the Felix era by cross-link.
• The same episode also appears at N-036. The school-records fact it rests on also appears at N-041 and at FNEW-W1.
• Two limits: no document has been found in which Wife or Davis objects to the wellness forms themselves; Davis called that premise "blatantly and patently false" on October 17, 2025, and Wife answered "None" to a discovery request for any instruction to the school to withhold the forms. And Husband's statement that the subpoena damaged his relationship with the school is his own account, with no independent corroboration in the record.

Spawned by: N-001

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-04-22

Actor

Judge Kelly Ayers

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

twenty-five pages of unrefuted evidence about opposing counsel's conduct produced no inquiry, no finding, and no conduct identified, in any forum; the court pointed to the Bar, the Bar had already closed the file and pointed back to the court, and the judicial commission later pointed back to the courts as well.

What the law required

Code Jud. Conduct Canon 3D(2) provides that a judge with knowledge of lawyer misconduct shall take appropriate action.

What happened

On April 22, 2025 Judge Ayers declined to take up Davis's conduct herself and pointed to the Bar, saying she is not the Florida Bar. In the same hearing Davis announced that the Bar had declined. The court's stated condition for acting was future: "if he comes to my courtroom and lies to me. order to show cause."

The finger-pointing is pinned on both ends of the loop. No forum ever addressed the misconduct described over twenty-five pages of unrefuted evidence. This was the third time the same duty was declined in the same case (N-022, N-023). [EXCUSED]

Baseline deviation

Canon 3D(2) puts the duty on the judge who learns of a lawyer's misconduct: take appropriate action. What she does with it is what would have produced a judicial record of the conduct. Here the pointing went in a circle. The Bar had closed the file six days after it arrived, saying the matter belonged to a court (N-031); the judicial commission later pointed back to the courts as well (N-062). The claim made here is narrow: no inquiry, no finding, and no conduct identified.

Receipt

• Transcript of the April 22, 2025 hearing, Tr. 36, the "I'm not the Florida Bar" loop, confirmed against the page image 8/7/26.
• N-031 for the six-day Bar closure and its quoted rationale. N-062 for the judicial commission dismissal.
• N-046 for the same hearing's specification void.
• N-022 for the first refusal of the same duty three months earlier, and N-023 for the refusal twelve days after that one.

Spawned by: N-031

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-04-22

Actor

Judge Kelly Ayers; Scott Davis (Tampa Bay Family Law & Mediation, P.A.)

Institution

24-DR-001150

Mechanism

asked in court twice and under oath once to name one thing Husband had filed or done that was inappropriate, no motion, paragraph, or sentence has been identified; the only conduct ever named was an email exchange about baseball equipment, charged to both sides.

What the law required

Article I, section 9 due process: a party accused of misconduct is entitled to notice of the conduct alleged, so that he can answer it. Canon 3D(2) requires a judge with information indicating a substantial likelihood of a lawyer's violation to take appropriate action, so a court asked to address an officer of the court's conduct either addresses it or states on the record why it will not.

What happened

Husband repeatedly asked, on the record, for anyone to name one thing he had done that was inappropriate. No one ever did. On April 22, 2025, pressed to address opposing counsel's conduct, Judge Ayers said she could not question him, then named the only conduct she attributed to either party: "the only thing that both of you have acted inappropriately were those emails about going to the baseball field with bats and balls and I called you both in and gave you both a lecture." He renewed the challenge twice more, drawing no answer. At deposition, asked for a specific example, Wife named two filings instead: his writ of certiorari and his motion to recuse the judge, the filings a litigant uses to ask a court to decide that question. No motion or sentence was ever identified. [EXCUSED: conduct named against Husband was an email exchange charged to both sides]

Baseline deviation

A party accused of misconduct is entitled to know what conduct is alleged, and a court asked to address counsel's conduct either addresses it or states why it will not. The measurable thing is the asymmetry: across more than two years, the filings and orders adverse to Husband rest on characterizations rather than incidents (N-001). The deviation is that no forum, court or Bar, ever named the conduct.

Receipt

• Doc 192 Tr. 35:3-25 (4/22/25, including "I'm not the Florida Bar. I don't discipline lawyers" and "I can't ask him any questions").
• Doc 212 Tr. 6:20-25 (6/3/25, Husband's renewed challenge: "I would ask Mr. Davis to show you one example of an inappropriate email I've sent.").
• Doc 152 Tr. 55:1-8 (2/12/25, "No one can name anything negative about what I have done as a father").
• Doc 205 Tr. 146:2-147:25 (the deposition passage, including Tr. 147:2-4 for "a specific example" and Tr. 147:17-25 for Wife's answer naming the writ of certiorari and the recusal motion).
• The Doc 192 reporter's verbatim includes the garbled "I don't that I've ever done" and is preserved as spoken.
• Specification-void family, cited as a family with each card's own candor limits traveling with it: NEW-P8 (Davis in correspondence), NEW-P6 (the Bar), N-062 (the judicial commission), N-064 (the Bar file and its sixteen demands), NEW-P7 (the invitation to name a false statement), and N-117 and N-136 (the mandamus court).

Spawned by: N-001, N-042

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-04-28

Actor

Judge Kelly Ayers

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

the disqualification rule was applied as written and Judge Ayers left the case, but the realignment the rule exists to produce, a neutral tribunal, never happened: under her successor the first-filed discovery motion has no written order, the psychological-evaluation motion is unruled, and the fee entitlement was never set

What the law required

Section 38.10, Florida Statutes, and Rule 2.330: a sworn motion showing that the party reasonably fears he will not receive a fair hearing because of specifically described bias (Rule 2.330(e)(1)) is decided on legal sufficiency alone, its facts taken as true, and a sufficient motion is granted at once (Rule 2.330(h)). Litigants are entitled to have their disputes resolved by impartial judges, Berry v. Berry, 765 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

What happened

The second disqualification motion was filed on April 24, 2025 and granted four days later. Judge Ayers was disqualified and the case was reassigned to Judge Felix. After reassignment, the first-filed discovery motion stayed unruled (N-003), the psychological-evaluation prong stayed unresolved (N-016), and the 2024 fee entitlement was never liquidated (N-009). The granting order's operative sentence reads that "Because Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(h) requires the Court to accept all allegations in an initial motion for disqualification as true, the Court finds the Motion to be legally sufficient," while its own caption calls it the second verified motion; a first motion had already been denied as legally insufficient without grounds twelve weeks earlier (N-027). Same movant, same species of motion, two orders that cannot both be applying the rule the same way. The order also expressly declines to rule on the venue request; the successor judge denied venue transfer after a June 3, 2025 hearing (Doc 204). [WON-THEN-NULLIFIED]

Baseline deviation

The rule requires that a facially sufficient disqualification motion be granted, the allegations taken as true, and it exists to secure the movant an impartial judge. The rule was applied as written and Husband won; what the win delivered is the rest of this card. It changed the identity of the judge. The neutral tribunal the rule is for is still owed: under the successor, the first-filed discovery motion has no written order (N-003), the psychological-evaluation prong stayed unresolved (N-016), the fee entitlement was never liquidated (N-009), and Husband’s records lawsuit later named the successor as a defendant while he continued to preside (N-059). The later disqualification in the records case followed the same course (NEW-P13).

Receipt

• Doc 183, the granted second disqualification motion, Filing #221772754, e-filed 4/24/25 11:24 PM, verified 4/23/25; pp. 1 and 8 (paras. 61-63) and p. 10 (the eye-roll heading and paras. 78-79 and 82).
• Doc 184, the disqualification order, at its operative sentence.
• Doc 181 (4/23/25, stamp) para. 2, bolded: neither the court nor Davis could produce "a single email, nor even a single sentence" of inappropriate conduct.
• Doc 180 (4/21/25, stamp) para. 8, the first docketed capture of the summary position change.
• Rule 2.330(e)(1).

Spawned by: N-042

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-11-24

Actor

Judge Kelly Ayers

Institution

13th Cir. / The Florida Bar (file 2026-10,395(13F))

Mechanism

invited in writing to name one false statement in the article about her, she filed a Bar complaint the same afternoon; through July 23, 2026, across sixteen written demands, nobody has named one.

What the law required

Canon 3D(2) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct: a judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer violated the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar “shall take appropriate action.” Truth is a complete defense in a disciplinary case, so the one thing that makes such a complaint stick is naming the false statement.

What happened

A published article named Judge Ayers and described her conduct. Two days later, at 10:18 AM, Husband emailed her division: "If you believe that anything stated in the article is untrue, please let me know so I can consider amending the article if appropriate." The same ask went to circuit administration and to the Bar and JQC minutes later (N-065). No identification of any false statement ever came from her or her division. That same afternoon, Judge Ayers filed her Florida Bar complaint against Husband (N-064). Through July 23, 2026, across sixteen written demands, that file still has not specified a single false statement, and the Bar's own referral letter captions the matter as "Complaint by The Florida Bar against Christopher Alan Hanson," not as a complaint by the judge. [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

Anyone who believes a published statement about them is false can say which one; that fixes the record. Truth is an absolute defense in a disciplinary case, so naming the false statement is the one thing that could make the complaint stick. What the record shows is no identification of any false statement, that day or ever, in a file sixteen written demands have since asked to specify one.

Receipt

• Three 11/24/25 invitation emails at 10:18, 10:27, and 10:34 AM, per N-065; division email is the one that reaches her.
• The article, posted on X 11/22/25 14:56 UTC, post 1992245722901577796, printed at Doc 267 pp. 14-56; complaint pleads publication on or about 11/21, conflict unresolved.
• Bar complaint intake 11/24/25, carded at N-064 with sixteen written specification demands running 12/8/25 through 7/23/26.
• Bar's referral letter to the grievance committee, dated December 3, 2025, and its caption.
• Timing arithmetic carded at N-065 as 6 hours 22 minutes from the 10:34 AM send; intake timestamp is ACAP intake of the complaint at 4:56:32 PM.

Spawned by: N-064, N-065

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.