Under Judge Felix

Date

2024-05-16

Actor

Judge Ayers, then Judge Felix

Institution

13th Cir. Fam. Div. A

Mechanism

the first motion filed in the case waited 23 months for a hearing while the other side's later motions were heard and granted

What the law required

Justice "shall be administered without sale, denial or delay." Art. I, s. 21, Fla. Const. "Every judge has a duty to enter within a reasonable time an order or judgment on every matter submitted to that judge." Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.215(g)(1). Financial disclosure in a dissolution case is mandatory and owed without a request. Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.285. Doc 22 was submitted May 16, 2024 and argued April 17, 2026. No written order has been entered.

What happened

Husband filed his motion to compel Wife's financial records on May 16, 2024. Neither Judge Ayers nor Judge Felix heard it until April 17, 2026: twenty-three months. What happened at that hearing is its own card: granted from the bench with compulsion disclaimed in the court's own words, and no written order ever entered (N-090). In the same period Wife's later-filed motions advanced to hearings and orders; her motion to compel reached an order in nine weeks (N-013). The financial record his motion sought has never been compelled. One motion was granted on paper: the compel was granted 10/28/24 and the order entered 11/20/24, but the amount was never liquidated, compliance was never required, and the records it reached were never produced (N-006, N-009). When he moved in July 2026 simply to have the eventual bench ruling put in writing, that motion too drew no order (N-133). [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

Rule 12.285 put Wife's financial disclosure on the docket without any motion, and Rule 2.215(g)(1) required a ruling on Husband's motion within a reasonable time. Husband's core objective since filing has been the records showing what happened to the marital income back to 2016, pursued through this motion, discovery requests, two generations of bank subpoenas, and follow-up motions. Wife and Davis opposed every attempt, and no court has compelled production in more than two years. This motion went unheard 23 months; no written order exists on it.

Receipt

• Doc 22 (Filing #198450606, 5/16/24) paras. 1 and 16; argued 4/17/26 (disposition at N-090); day counts recomputed; Rule 2.215(g)(2) notice at 804 days (N-140); the written-order motion at N-133.
• The core-objective sentence anchors across the record: Doc 22 itself, the Chase subpoenas in two generations, the Motion to Void's financial center (Doc 146), and the 7/22/26 written-order motion.
• The "opposed every attempt" sentence is enumerated, one opposed attempt per receipt: the motion unheard 23 months; the first-generation subpoenas ended by sustained objection (Doc 93, 12/30/24); the second generation objected to and never ruled on; the 4/17/26 ruling preserving objections without compelling production; the certificates listing one month of the Chase records.
• Separately, and counted with none of the above: the compel of 10/28/24, order entered 11/20/24 (N-006, N-009).
• "More than two years" runs from the 5/16/24 filing.

Read the source document: Doc 22, Response to Motion to Compel Payments and Motion to Compel Evidence of Marital Assets (filing record only, body withheld)

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

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 Ayers, the full ledger.

Date

2024-12-13 -> 2026-06-25

Actor

Judge Ayers, then Judge Felix

Institution

13th Cir. Fam. Div. A

Mechanism

Husband offered to sign the medical releases and to take the evaluations with no court order needed, Wife's counsel declined on the record, and the motions asking for those very things have gone twenty months without a ruling, as of August 20, 2026.

What the law required

Justice "shall be administered without sale, denial or delay." Art. I, s. 21, Fla. Const. Every judge must enter an order within a reasonable time on every matter submitted. Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.215(g)(1). The party who files a motion carries the burden of proving it; when the movant will not prosecute it, and the relief it seeks has been offered and declined on the record, the motion is disposed of.

What happened

Husband offered to sign medical releases and to attend psychological and vocational evaluations without compulsion. Davis declined on the record: "We haven't taken him up on these things, because we want a guardian ad litem appointed." Judge Ayers and then Judge Felix carried the 12/13/24 motion barrage indefinitely rather than address the retaliation showing (N-011, N-013). Of nine Wife-side motions in the motion-timing dataset, one was driven to a ruling: the guardian ad litem, granted 6/25/26 with no unfitness finding (N-125). The psychological evaluation motion has sat unruled 641 days as of 9/15/26; the vocational evaluation motion was noticed once, then abandoned for about 16 months. Both remain pending, now set with eight other motions for an 8-hour block on 10/9/26. On the one motion pursued, the court asked Davis to summarize Wife's testimony; he promised it and never produced it (N-044). [IGNORED: retaliation showing never ruled on]

Baseline deviation

A court decides what is put before it, and the party who files a motion carries the burden of proving it. On April 7, 2025 the court asked Wife's counsel to summarize her testimony and he agreed in writing; he never produced it, and Husband's motion to strike for lack of prosecution (Doc 177) is also undecided. The releases and evaluations the motions sought were offered and declined on the record. A motion left pending costs the movant nothing while keeping a standing threat alive. Same shape at N-064; arc from N-002.

Receipt

• 5/29 Tr. 59:6-11 (the offer to attend acknowledged on the record).
• 6/10 Tr. 51:9-11 (offers), 101:1-9 (the declination and its stated reason), 80:12-18.
• Motion-timing dataset on file (nine Wife motions, one ruled).
• Doc 279 (2/3/26 case management transcript). Doc 224 pendency inventory.
• Separately: Doc 138 (2/19/25), a distinct Wife-side motion to compel, granted in part (N-035); not counted in the nine-motion dataset above.
• Day counts as printed on the card; recompute at build.
• Related decision points: N-001.

Spawned by: N-107, N-001

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-01-21 -> ongoing

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix; Judge Sherwood Coleman; Judge Kelly Ayers

Institution

24-DR-001150 (13th Cir. Fam. Div. A); 25-CA-010255

Mechanism

a court order barred both parents from writing anything critical about the guardian ad litem or her private law firm, recited that they had waived the right to, and no party had asked for any of it

What the law required

A parent's liberty interest in his children and his freedom of speech are protected by Article I, sections 9 and 4 of the Florida Constitution and by the First and Fourteenth Amendments; a limitation on protected speech is presumptively invalid and the state carries the burden of justifying it (Romero v. Erik G. Abrahamson, P.A., 113 So. 3d 870, 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)). In the adversarial system the parties frame the issues and the court rules on what they present; a court may not grant relief no party requested or decide on grounds no party raised. Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008); United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. 371 (2020). Notice and an opportunity to be heard attach before an obligation is imposed.

What happened

Wife's motion for a guardian ad litem asked for three things: appoint a guardian, make Husband pay subject to reallocation, and any other relief appropriate. The order granting it, signed June 25, 2026, carried terms in no motion by any party. Paragraph 19 states: "The parents acknowledge that they are prohibited from posting any online reviews concerning the Guardian ad Litem and [the firm named in the appointment order]. Any postings to social media about the case shall be immediately removed and the parents authorize, Google, Avvo, Facebook, etc. to immediately remove the posts based upon this specific waiver." No such acknowledgment or waiver appears in the record. The order also has each parent waive future claims against the guardian, requires prepaying the guardian's counsel, and imposes mandatory paid OurFamilyWizard (N-134), none requested. A parallel pattern recurred in the mandamus case, receipted below. [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

A court rules on what somebody asked for, and a restriction on a parent's speech is presumptively invalid until the state justifies it. Terms binding two parents appear in no party's papers, no one was heard on them, and the order recites agreements no party made. An order in the records case commanded compliance with a dated order that appears nowhere, uncorrected after two motions asked about it.

Receipt

• Wife's Motion for Appointment of Guardian ad Litem, 12/13/2024, prayer at p. 3.
• Doc 337 (order granting, signed 6/25/2026, 2 pp.). Appointment-order terms quoted from the amended order, DIN 365, p. 8; its 7/23/26 predecessor was served as a five-page odd-pages-only artifact and the page restoration is documented at N-134, where the Guardian's 8/3/26 request that "a complete copy of the Order be entered into the electronic court file so that I can fully carry out the duties the Court has entrusted to me" also sits.
• Mandamus-case scrivener pattern: Doc 81 para. 1 (5/5/2026) for the April 18 recital of a non-existent order (confirmed a scrivener's error for the April 28 order by the order signed August 27, 2026, para. III(e)); Doc 80 para. (e), signed 4/28/26, carries the actual dates directive; Husband's Docs 85 and 86 para. 30.
• Negative search scope, stated because it bounds the claim: filename patterns and full-text scan across the entire 10255 matter tree, plus the ACIS docket sheet read end to end (DIN 79 clocked in 4/14, DIN 80 on 5/5, nothing between). Email was not searched.
• Party-presentation authority: Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008); United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. 371 (2020).
• Related decision points: N-023.

Spawned by: N-023, N-098, N-134

This decision point also appears on: Court Oversight and Conflict Judges in the Sixth Circuit, the full ledger.

Date

2025-02-28

Actor

Judge Ayers then Judge Felix

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

the court told Husband exactly what to file if he wanted discovery, he filed it in exactly that form, and as of 8/17/26, 535 days later, no judge has ruled on it; the gate the court built has never opened.

What the law required

Justice "shall be administered without sale, denial or delay." Art. I, s. 21, Fla. Const. Under Casto v. Casto, 508 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1987), a marital agreement is set aside if procured by fraud, duress, coercion or misrepresentation, or if it makes unreasonable provision and was executed without full disclosure; an unreasonable provision raises a presumption of concealment that the defending spouse must rebut (Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, 143 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1962)). The court that made this motion the gate to all discovery (N-018) had to decide it. Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.215(g)(1).

What happened

Husband filed his Motion to Void Post-Marital Agreement and to open discovery on 2/28/25 (DIN 146), in the exact form Judge Ayers had prescribed across three hearings (N-019). Neither Judge Ayers nor Judge Felix has ruled on it: 535 days as of 8/17/26. It surfaced again on 4/17/26 as the acknowledged predicate and drew no ruling then either. He filed it the same day he refiled the Chase subpoenas, and Wife's objection to those has likewise never been ruled on (N-034).

The motion's para. 107 states the arithmetic the discovery would test. On the affidavits then on file, Wife's disclosed assets over liabilities were $104,611 against Husband's in excess of $800,000.

Thirty-three days after the motion was filed, at Wife's deposition on 4/2/25, Husband renewed the offer to void the agreements directly. Wife, sworn: "[Husband], I'm not interested." Husband: "We can do it right now." Wife: "No. No. No. I'm not interested." She stated the figures as she understood them: "you're claiming 800,000 and I'm claiming 100,000". Asked why she would not void an agreement that on those numbers pays her more, her counsel objected: "No. 1, relevance because the Court hasn't set aside the agreement yet". The motion to set it aside was this motion, then thirty-three days old and unruled. It is still unruled.

Wife gave her own reasons, and they are recorded in the receipt. Set beside them is one dated fact: the disclosure that would test the arithmetic has been owed since the June 28, 2024 stipulated production date, and producing it required no motion, no hearing, and no judge. [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

Under Casto, an agreement executed without financial disclosure is open to challenge, and once the challenge is filed the other spouse's finances are the evidence by which it is decided; if a provision is unreasonable, the burden shifts to Wife to show disclosure. Wife's sworn petition states the October 8, 2023 agreement "did not include financial disclosures" (Doc 203 para. 5). On 12/19/24 the court said of the agreements, "Nobody's asked me to do anything different with them," and then named the step: "it stays in full force and effect unless you file something otherwise." Husband filed. The entitlement has been withheld every day since.

Receipt

• Doc 146 (2/28/25), paras. 107 and 109. The instrument's name in the record's own exhibit list is the Marital Separation Agreement dated 10/8/23; the motion's title uses "Post-Marital Agreement" and the title is quoted as filed.
• Doc 090, transcript of the December 19, 2024 hearing, Tr. 7:6-23, the prescription and the "full force and effect" line.
• Doc 205, Wife's deposition of April 2, 2025, Tr. 132:16-134:22 for the exchange quoted above.
• Wife's stated reasons, recorded and not contested here: she wants the divorce over, she is not driven by money, her interest is the children, and her account of the agreement is a negotiation in which she asked for $250,000 and accepted $100,000. Nothing is asserted about her state of mind.
• Transcript of the April 17, 2026 hearing, Tr. 101-103. Doc 200 pp. 4-28.
• Docs 34 and 43, the affidavits behind the arithmetic. The $104,611 is Wife's disclosed net worth; the $100,000 is the payment she received under the agreement. Two different figures.
• The 535-day figure is as of 8/17/26 and recomputes at use.

Spawned by: N-018

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 Ayers, the full ledger.

Spawned by: N-038, N-125

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-06-24

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

the venue motion was denied from the bench with no findings, the winning side was told to write the order, and fees were reserved for "both parties" when only one side had ever asked for them.

What the law required

Section 47.122 authorizes transfer "in the interest of justice," a ground independent of convenience, and a transfer under it requires findings (Fast v. Nelson, 22 So. 3d 109 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)). Due process requires an impartial tribunal. Art. I, s. 9, Fla. Const.; U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009).

What happened

Judge Felix heard the venue transfer motion on 6/3/25 and denied it "at this time" from the bench with zero findings. The order entered 6/24/25. He directed Davis to draft it. He reserved fees for "both parties" though only Davis had requested them. He did not engage the structural impartial-tribunal argument. That argument does not apply here: in June 2025 the mandamus naming the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit and its judges (25-CA-010255) had not yet been filed (filed 10/14/25, N-058), so it attaches to rulings after that date and is scored on the disqualification and mandamus rows. [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

Section 47.122 requires findings before a transfer is granted, and this denial made none, so nothing in the order can be tested against the record. Two further things in the order sit outside discretion: fees were reserved for a party who never requested them, and an order drafted by the winning party after the decision carries the drafter's reasons, not the court's. This denial began the appeal (2D2025-1936) through which the 4/4/25 video was kept out of the appellate record (N-066, N-087).

Receipt

• Doc 212 Tr. 15, 18.

Spawned by: N-047

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-06-28

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

Husband asked for an immediate ruling on discovery objections that had waited four to thirteen months; the answer was a form saying it was not an emergency and belonged in the normal course. That normal course has still not come, more than 13 months later.

What the law required

Justice "shall be administered without sale, denial or delay." Art. I, s. 21, Fla. Const. "Every judge has a duty to enter within a reasonable time an order or judgment on every matter submitted to that judge." Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.215(g)(1). Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.280 entitles a party to discovery of any relevant, non-privileged matter, and under Casto v. Casto, 508 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1987), Wife's finances are the evidence on the pending challenge to the agreement. The June 28, 2025 motion named three matters then 408, 120 and 118 days old.

What happened

Husband filed an emergency motion on 6/28/25 demanding an immediate ruling on the subpoena and discovery objections. The matters it asked about had already been waiting: DIN 22 for 408 days, DIN 146 for 120 days, DIN 149 for 118 days. Judge Felix entered a handling order only (Doc 210) and never ruled on the merits. The motion was re-listed 4/20/26 (Doc 295) and never reached. The objections stand unruled and the demand is unanswered, more than 13 months on as of August 20, 2026. [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

An emergency motion asking for an immediate ruling gets a ruling or a reason. The form answer here, that the matter belongs in the normal course, presumes a normal course exists. The histories of the three matters it named were the evidence that one did not. Those unruled objections are the only thing standing between Husband and the subpoenaed bank records (N-018, N-034). A merits ruling would have produced a record either way.

Receipt

• Docs 209, 210, 295.
• Pendency arithmetic as printed on the card: 5/16/24 to 6/28/25 is 408 days; 2/28/25 to 6/28/25 is 120; 3/2/25 to 6/28/25 is 118.

Spawned by: N-018

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-06-28

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

an emergency motion that set out three dated incidents of interference with the children's time drew one checkbox, and more than a year later no judge has heard it or made a finding on any incident.

What the law required

A parent's relationship with his children is a fundamental liberty interest. Art. I, s. 9, Fla. Const.; U.S. Const. amend. XIV. Section 61.13 makes the children's best interests, including their bond with both parents, the court's charge, and Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.215(g)(1) requires a ruling within a reasonable time on every matter submitted. A documented record of ongoing interference with parenting time, presented by motion, is addressed on its content, by hearing or by findings.

What happened

By 6/28/25 Husband had filed the record (Docs 206, 207, 208) and an emergency motion built on it (Doc 209). It covered the graduation-morning incident, the church-service incident, and the vacation dispute. The court's entire response, on 6/30/25, was one checkbox: "The matter is not an emergency and should be handled in the normal course." Nearly fifteen months later the motion had not been heard; Wife's own notice sets it among ten matters for October 9, 2026. No judge has ever made a finding on any item. The comparison sits on the same docket: Wife's filings have drawn hearings at speed, her contempt motion set in three days (N-151), while Husband's emergency filings have drawn the checkbox (this row, N-050, DIN 354). Neither her counsel's conduct (N-029, N-044) nor the interference carded here has ever drawn a finding or a consequence. [IGNORED: the court screened the filing for emergency status and has never reached its content.]

Baseline deviation

A filed record of ongoing interference with a parent's time with his children normally draws a hearing or written findings. This one drew a single checkbox, and no finding has ever been made on any of the dated incidents underneath it (mechanism at N-050). The comparison that follows is argued from the pattern, not from any court finding.

Receipt

• Docs 206, 207, 208 (the filed record); Doc 210, the checkbox.
• Two distinct incidents, stated separately: the Michigan-trip vacation dispute, and the extra overnight around Mother's Day 2025 after which Wife rather than Husband took their daughter to her kindergarten graduation the next morning.
• The 6/17/25 letter pages have not been checked against page images.

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-08-01

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

two orders in three minutes fifty-one seconds, neither with a hearing and neither with reasons, froze the whole discovery queue while the parts of Husband's own motion that would have moved discovery forward went unruled.

What the law required

Fla. R. App. P. 9.310 governs a stay pending appeal. A ruling that freezes all discovery states its reasons, because findings are what permit review (Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 791 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Ruberg v. Ruberg, 858 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)), and every matter submitted draws a ruling within a reasonable time. Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.215(g)(1). Doc 215 asked for three things: a response to the third request to produce, issuance of the Chase subpoenas, and the stay.

What happened

On 8/1/25, after the Second District sent the stay question down (Doc 223, 7/30/25), Judge Felix issued two orders without a hearing, three minutes fifty-one seconds apart. At 9:12 AM he denied the venue rehearing "on it's face" [sic] and gave no reasons. At 9:16 AM he granted the stay (Doc 225) and left its reasoning section empty. He left the discovery prongs of Doc 215 unruled, including the third request to produce and the Chase subpoenas. He took from Husband's own motion only the relief that required no findings against Davis, and froze the discovery queue. Wife's own 8/4/25 verified emergency motion to lift concedes the stay issued "without conducting a hearing or considering legal argument" (Doc 224 para. 11), while its own delay inventory omits every Husband motion. [DENIED: relief refused, and the reasons for refusing were never stated.]

Baseline deviation

A stay that freezes all discovery rests on stated reasons, and a motion's remaining parts get ruled on rather than dropped. Here the reasoning section is empty, and the discovery prongs of the same motion were dropped rather than ruled on. The stay is one event with four decision points: this grant, the lift never entered (N-060), the order-less status that followed (N-074), and the evidentiary day held under it (N-092).

Receipt

• Doc 223 (Second District, 7/30/25).
• The 8/1/25 twin orders stamped 9:12:41 and 9:16:32 (3 minutes 51 seconds, not four).
• Doc 225 (reasoning section empty). Doc 215 (the dropped discovery prongs).
• Doc 224 para. 11, plus the pendency-clock inventory (234, 234, 210, 185, and 200 days on motions heard February-April 2025 and never decided), read from page images because the text layer is ciphered.

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-10-03

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

an 82-page motion asking for findings on opposing counsel's conduct and for misconduct referrals has stood more than ten months with no order in either direction, as of August 20, 2026.

What the law required

Justice "shall be administered without sale, denial or delay." Art. I, s. 21, Fla. Const. "Every judge has a duty to enter within a reasonable time an order or judgment on every matter submitted to that judge." Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.215(g)(1). Doc 239 was submitted October 3, 2025 and has been noticed for hearing more than once.

What happened

Husband filed the 82-page sanctions motion on 10/3/25 (Doc 239). Judge Felix has never entered any order on it. It was set for 10/17/25 and never reached (N-060), re-listed 4/20/26, and confirmed on the notice at the 5/29/26 hearing (Tr. 231:19-23). It appears as item 8 on the 5/29/26 notice (Doc 295) and again as item 8 on the 10/9/26 notice (DIN 361), so it remains pending and set. The second safe-harbor letter, 5/9/2025, carried five itemized cure conditions and is distinct from the 12/5/2024 letter at N-011. Its safe harbor ran out 5/30/2025, and the follow-on sanctions motion was not filed until 10/3/2025, 126 days later. The motion demanded findings and misconduct referrals. It has never been decided either way. [IGNORED: the motion was never decided either way.]

Baseline deviation

Section 57.105 puts the fee question to the court once the safe harbor runs; Husband carries the burden of showing the positions were unsupported, and can carry it only at a hearing. The hearing has never been held, and no ruling either way has issued in more than ten months. A motion to compel filed by Wife's counsel was granted in part (Doc 138, 2/19/25, N-035). The statutory notice that preceded it, the section 57.105 letter at N-011, has itself never been heard: 649 days as of 9/15/26.

Receipt

• Doc 239, Filing #232899712.
• Doc 295 item 8 (5/29/26 notice). DIN 361 item 8 (10/9/26 notice).
• Safe-harbor arithmetic as printed: 5/9/2025 plus 21 days is 5/30/2025; 5/30/2025 to 10/3/2025 is 126 days.
• Related pendency: N-011 at 610 days to 8/7/26; this motion at 308 days to 8/7/26.

Spawned by: N-011, N-037, N-044

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-10-12

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

the request that hearings be recorded was never decided, and while it waited the recordings that did exist were erased on a 30-day schedule; seven hearing dates now have no video at all.

What the law required

Justice "shall be administered without sale, denial or delay." Art. I, s. 21, Fla. Const. "Every judge has a duty to enter within a reasonable time an order or judgment on every matter submitted to that judge." Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.215(g)(1). Doc 245, the motion to record proceedings, was submitted October 12, 2025. The recordings that existed were overwritten on a 30-day schedule while it waited.

What happened

Husband filed the emergency motion to record proceedings on 10/12/25 (Doc 245). Two days later Judge Felix's handling order set the motion to be addressed at the October 17, 2025 hearing (Doc 247); no order issued there (Doc 250). It was next set for hearing six months later, at the 4/17/26 omnibus day, and was not decided there either. Wife listed it for 5/29/26 and it was never reached. Meanwhile the recordings went: the administrative office's 7/30/26 response states that for seven listed hearing dates the footage "had already been overwritten prior to the date of your request," under a 30-day retention schedule. The request to record has never been decided. [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

A motion asking that proceedings be recorded normally draws a decision one way or the other. The court said it would address the request on October 17, 2025 and has not decided it in the 347 days from filing to September 24, 2026. The recordings that existed anyway were destroyed on the ordinary schedule while it waited. No motive is asserted; the schedule's own proviso is quoted in the receipt.

Receipt

• Doc 245, Filing #233451400 (stamp).
• Doc 247 (handling order reciting full title); Doc 250 ("no order was issued"). The 98-minute checkbox (Doc 251) answers Doc 250, a later motion, and is carded separately.
• Doc 276, read from page images (first hearing setting, 4/17/26 omnibus day, DIN 22 then 23 months old).
• Seven overwritten hearing dates: 6/3/25, 10/9/25, 10/17/25, 2/3/26, 4/17/26, 5/29/26, 6/10/26; response: "There are no records satisfying this request."
• Retention schedule text, p. 255 of 258: "RETENTION: 30 days, then erase and reuse provided any necessary images are saved."
• Two receipted tensions: the stated grounds shifted (2025 exemption vs. 2026 overwriting) for the same records category; June 10, 2026 footage was overwritten with a three-day margin against the 7/13/26 request (6/10 plus 30 is 7/10).
• Source: 13th Circuit administrative office's 7/30/26 response to the audio-video records request.

Spawned by: N-042

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-10-14 -> ongoing

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix; the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit; a 2D DCA panel (Villanti, Sleet, Smith); The Florida Bar

Institution

25-CA-010255 (13th Cir.); 24-DR-001150 (13th Cir.); 2D2026-0279; 2025-CA-2469 (Leon)

Mechanism

one structural question was put to three courts and answered by none: may a judge who is a defendant in one case keep presiding over the related one

What the law required

Due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and Article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution forbids anyone to judge a cause in which he has an interest: In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955); Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (disqualification required where the probability of actual bias is too high to be constitutionally tolerable); Williams v. Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. 1 (2016) (the error is structural). Court rules govern "practice and procedure" (Art. V, s. 2(a), Fla. Const.); the impartial tribunal is a constitutional guarantee, and the federal Constitution binds "the Judges in every State," any state rule to the contrary notwithstanding (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2). Under Rule 2.330(h) the facts alleged are taken as true and the motion is judged on legal sufficiency alone. In a records mandamus the respondent's role is to answer the writ (Radford v. Brock, 914 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Town of Manalapan v. Rechler, 674 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)), so the named judges are either nominal custodians with no stake, in which case no merits advocacy for them is proper, or parties with a stake, in which case Murchison and Williams apply; no court in this record has answered either way.

What happened

The conflict takes three forms across related cases: Judge Felix, a named defendant in the records mandamus, kept presiding over the family case; the mandamus was filed in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, with the Attorney General appearing for the judicial defendants; and The Florida Bar is itself a party in two of the forums. Three courts were asked whether a judge who is a defendant in one case may preside over the related one, and each disposed of the request without reaching that question. Judge Felix denied the disqualification motions on the successive-motion rule, the second time 9 hours and 27 minutes after it was filed, ruling it legally insufficient and stating that he can be fair and impartial (N-069, N-118). The Second District denied the prohibition petition in one sentence, seven days after filing, with no response required (N-078). The Sixth Circuit judge assigned to the records case ruled that he had no power to transfer the family case (N-075). No court has said why a judge who is a defendant in one case may preside over the related one. [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

Due process forbids anyone to judge a cause in which he has an interest, and a procedural rule cannot override that guarantee. A judge named as a defendant in the records case kept presiding over the related family case. The question was put to three courts; each disposed of it without reaching the merits, and no court has said why a judge who is a defendant in one case may preside over the related one.

Receipt

• Amended mandamus petition caption (e-filed 11/13/25, 25-CA-10255).
• Disqualification order rested on the successive-motion rule (Rule 2.330(i)).
• 2D DCA denial: prohibition petition filed 2/3/26 and denied 2/10/26, seven days later, one day after fee paid, no opinion, no response required (N-078).
• 1150 Doc 258 (1/8/26) and Doc 331 (6/10/26, e-signed 9:27:13 AM; the motion, Doc 329, e-filed 12:00:02 AM).
• 10255 Doc 61 paras. 9 and 11 (family-case transfer denied for lack of authority).
• Two of the judges in this chain have ruled for Husband.
• Defendants have a nominal-party answer available; naming a court and its judges in a mandamus about the court's own records is how such petitions are normally styled.

Spawned by: N-058, N-069, N-078, N-091

This decision point also appears on: Court Oversight and Conflict Judges in the Sixth Circuit, The Appellate Courts, The Florida Bar, the full ledger.

Date

2025-10-17

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

the court set three of Husband's own filings for the 10/17/25 hearing and reached none of them, and the one thing it did grant that day, lifting the stay, was never put in an order, so for six months nobody could say what was stayed.

What the law required

Justice "shall be administered without sale, denial or delay." Art. I, s. 21, Fla. Const. Every judge must rule within a reasonable time on every matter submitted. Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.215(g)(1). A court speaks through its written orders, so a stay imposed by order is lifted by order. The court rules on the motions its own handling order set for the hearing (Docs 239, 245, 60).

What happened

Judge Felix's own handling order set three of Husband's filings for the 10/17/25 hearing: Doc 239, the 82-page sanctions motion (N-056); Doc 245, the motion to record proceedings (N-057); and Doc 60, the section 57.105 notice of intent to seek sanctions. He lifted the stay, which both parties had sought, and never returned to any of the three. He declined to rule on any motion without a hearing and set no continuance date. The stay-lift order was never entered. Husband objected that with no order entered, the stay's status was unsettled and confusing to litigate under. On 4/17/26 Davis described the missing order as something that "slipped through the cracks," explaining: "Mr. Hanson had numerous objections to the order." [IGNORED: the motions the court itself had scheduled were left undecided.]

Baseline deviation

A court rules on the motions its own handling order set for hearing, and a stay is lifted the way it was imposed, by order. The reason given for not ruling, that the court would not decide a motion without argument, does not explain why the motions the court itself had noticed were never reached, or why the grant that day existed only as spoken words. A full evidentiary day went forward under the still-unlifted stay on 4/17/26 (N-092).

Receipt

• Certified transcript, 10/17/25, Tr. 4 and 37-40.
• 4/17/26 Tr. p. 23 (both halves of the Davis passage; the shorter rendering is an elision).
• Court declined to rule "on the face of the motion. without a hearing".
• The stay is one event with four decision points: the grant (N-052), the unentered lift (this row), the order-less status (N-074), and the stayed hearing (N-092).

Spawned by: N-056, N-057

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-10-17

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir. Fam. Div. A

Mechanism

Husband tried to ask opposing counsel why he filed for primary custody 26 days before the discovery hearing; the court shut the question off, and declined to set the guardian ad litem motion, later run to an order, while his older discovery motion stayed behind.

What the law required

Sec. 90.612 and the relevance rules permit examination into filing timing where retaliatory purpose is squarely at issue. The docket is managed on the merits rather than to shield a party's litigation-timing choices from inquiry.

What happened

At the 10/17/25 hearing Judge Felix made two rulings that kept Davis's litigation timing off the record. He refused to permit the examination: "I'm not going to entertain you asking Mr. Davis things about why he filed things at certain times" (Tr. 35:9-11). And he declined to set the guardian ad litem motion for evidentiary hearing: "You're a couple of steps ahead, Mr. Hanson. I'm not setting any motion hearings on the guardian right now" (Tr. 37:7-9). The predicate for the shut-off question is dated: the primary-custody amendment was filed 10/2/24, 26 days before the 10/28/24 discovery hearing. Davis has never been questioned on that timing. [DENIED: the inquiry was shut off and the hearing was refused.]

Baseline deviation

Section 90.612 and relevance rules permit examination into a party's filing timing where retaliatory purpose is squarely at issue. What the record fixes is the bookend: the guardian ad litem motion Judge Felix would not set on 10/17/25 was later noticed, given full evidentiary days, and ordered on 6/25/26 (N-125), while Husband's older discovery stayed subordinated. Husband said on the record his motion was "513 days" old; recomputed from the 5/16/24 filing, 10/17/25 is day 519. No motive is asserted.

Receipt

• 10/17/25 Tr. 35:9-11 (refusal to examine) and 37:7-9 (guardian ad litem not set), per the 10/17/25 and 2/3/26 cold-read ledger of 7/23/26, items CR-1 and U-3; both statements are Judge Felix.
• Husband's predicate question at Tr. 35:2-5. Tr. 29:5 ("513 days," Husband speaking).
• Doc 200 p. 10, read from page images (10/2/24 filing, 26 days before the 10/28/24 hearing).
• Deviation bookend via N-125.

Spawned by: N-003, N-060

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Spawned by: N-057

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-01-08

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

the ground raised was that a judge named as a defendant in a pending case was presiding over the related one; the order answered with a procedural bar, contained no analysis of that question, and the follow-on denial cited no authority at all.

What the law required

Due process requires an impartial tribunal: "no man can be a judge in his own case." Art. I, s. 9, Fla. Const.; U.S. Const. amend. XIV; In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955); Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009); Williams v. Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. 1 (2016). Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.330(e)(2)(C) requires disqualification where the judge has "more than a de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding"; the motion's allegations are taken as true and tested on whether a reasonably prudent person would fear an unfair trial (Fischer v. Knuck, 497 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 1986)).

What happened

On 1/8/26 Judge Felix denied Husband's motion to disqualify all 13th Circuit judges (Doc 255) by Doc 258. The order rests entirely on Rule 2.330(i) and contains no federal or structural-conflict analysis. It refers to Husband as "Defendant," which is a template artifact and is noted here only. Doc 280 attacks the order on those grounds. The follow-on motion to vacate and for rehearing was denied by Doc 260 on 1/22/26, and unlike Doc 258, Doc 260 cites no authority at all. The status ground has never been engaged on the merits by anyone. [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

A judge who is a defendant in a suit the litigant before him is prosecuting holds the disqualifying interest (Rule 2.330(e)(2)(C)); the ground is his status, and a disqualification motion's allegations are taken as true. No judge in any forum has engaged that question on the merits: the January 8, 2026 order ruled on a procedural track that never reached his status, and the Second District denied the prohibition petition in eight days without opinion (N-078, N-059).

Receipt

• Docs 255, 258 (1/8/26) and 260 (cites no authority; electronic stamp 1/22/26 12:07:43 PM).
• Doc 280 (attacks the order on due-process/structural grounds).

Spawned by: N-058

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Spawned by: N-003

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-02-03

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

the stay that froze discovery for six months was imposed in writing in under four minutes and was never lifted by any order at all; Husband asked in writing which order lifted it, and the question has never been answered.

What the law required

Justice "shall be administered without sale, denial or delay." Art. I, s. 21, Fla. Const. "Every judge has a duty to enter within a reasonable time an order or judgment on every matter submitted to that judge." Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.215(g)(1). Doc 283 asked one question. By what order, entered on what date, was the August 1, 2025 stay lifted.

What happened

No order lifted the 8/1/25 stay. A title-level sweep of Docs 250 through 365 found it was never lifted, vacated, dissolved or modified by any order. His Motion to Clarify Status of Stay (Doc 283, 4/14/26) states he was "unable to locate any order lifting, vacating, dissolving, or modifying the August 1, 2025 stay. No such order appears on the docket". No responsive order ever issued through Doc 365 (8/4/26). Wife's same-day response concedes the lift is order-less: "The Court has already lifted the stay. Following two hearings, the Court removed the stay," citing no order, no date and no reason, while attacking the stay's merits retroactively. The question is still open: by what order, entered on what date, was the stay lifted? Either an order exists and can be named, or there is none. [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

A stay is lifted the way it is imposed, by order, and a motion asking the court to identify the lifting order gets determined. This stay was imposed in writing in under four minutes with zero reasons (N-052), and un-imposed with zero writing at all, so the freeze has no recorded end. After it dissolved, Wife received the 4/17 evidentiary day and the guardian ad litem, while Husband's revived discovery drew granted quash and protective orders.

Receipt

• Doc 283 para. 3 plus WHEREFORE clauses a through c.
• Doc 286 paras. 2 and 14 (Wife's response, also citing "Not a single case, rule, or statute supports a stay").
• Doc 279 Tr. 5:3-15 plus word-index confirmation ("I do not see any stay as a result of that writ").
• Title sweep of Docs 250-365.
• The stay is one event with four decision points (N-052, N-060, the unwritten lift recorded here, and N-092).
• Related decision points: N-073, N-090.

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-02-09

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

The judge who presided on April 4, 2025 offered on the record to "go get the camera footage"; asked on April 17, 2026 whether he had watched it, her successor answered, "I have not." Two trial-court motions and two appellate requests to add the video drew no ruling on the merits, and the appellate orders name no judge.

What the law required

Justice "shall be administered without sale, denial or delay." Art. I, s. 21, Fla. Const. "Every judge has a duty to enter within a reasonable time an order or judgment on every matter submitted to that judge." Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.215(g)(1). Docs 280 and 284 asked the court to watch the April 4, 2025 video.

What happened

Husband asked the trial court twice to look at the 4/4/25 video: Doc 280 (3/17/26) and its emergency re-filing, Doc 284 (4/14/26). On 4/17/26 he asked the court directly whether it had reviewed the video. The court first answered, "I have reviewed your motion." Asked again, the court answered: "I have not." Judge Felix entered a handling order only (Doc 285). The clerk's docket shows no order ruling on either through September 8, 2026. The appellate side ran the same way: the Second District denied the motion to supplement the record with that video in an order naming no panel and giving no reason, denied a rehearing motion the same way, and on April 6, 2026 denied a second request, treated as a motion to supplement, the same way (N-066, N-087). [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

A motion asking a court to look at the central piece of evidence gets a ruling. The video's existence is not in dispute: the court's own administrative office confirmed in writing that "a video record does exist" and withheld it (N-053), and the judge who invoked it in her own defense then declined to pursue it (N-042). The bench answered the question directly on 4/17/26.

Receipt

• Docs 280 and 284, and the handling order at 285. Doc 267 is the appellate motion copied into the trial docket; Doc 283 is a stay motion.
• 2D2025-1936 Docs 041, 042 and 043, each "BY ORDER OF THE COURT" with no judge named.
• Doc 280 is the Motion for Judicial Review of the April 4, 2025 hearing video, e-filed 3/17/26 at 8:46:17 PM, 11 pp.
• 4/17/26 exchange at Tr. 8:10-16 (including "Have you reviewed that video, Judge." and "Have you reviewed the video?"), lines 17-19 read for context; full transcript 423 pp., substantive text pp. 1-363; PDF page 8 renders reporter's own "[Page 8]" header, pagination one to one.
• Speaker of "I have not." is the court, Judge Felix, presiding that day.
• Unresolved-motions list in the matter file plus the docket pull; clerk docket export through DIN 378.

Spawned by: N-042, N-058

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Spawned by: N-003, N-073

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-04-17

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

asked six times to make findings of fact, the court answered: "I can make the ruling without findings of facts, and if the Second DCA says I need to find facts, then I'll do so."

What the law required

Due process requires an impartial tribunal and a record on which its impartiality can be reviewed. Art. I, s. 9, Fla. Const.; U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009); In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955). A challenge to the judge's status is engaged under Rule 2.330(e)(2)(C), and findings of fact are what make a court's rulings reviewable (Ruberg v. Ruberg, 858 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)).

What happened

On 4/17/26 Judge Felix refused to make findings of fact six times. In his own words: "I can make the ruling without findings of facts, and if the Second DCA says I need to find facts, then I'll do so." He orally denied the structural-conflict disqualification "at this time" in reliance on Doc 258, an order that had itself rested purely on the successive-motion bar (N-069). He denied a recess. No findings of fact were entered. Findings here would have created the factual record on the structural conflict that N-069 and N-078 each disposed of without reaching. [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

Findings of fact are how a decision becomes reviewable. A judge who says in advance he will not find facts unless reversed inverts the appellate sequence, since the higher court reviews the findings. Six weeks later, asked whether he would ever find facts about Husband's constitutional rights, the same judge answered "Maybe." (N-108). The findings the court declined to make are the same findings the Bar's 6/16/26 closure letter requires for any resubmission (N-121).

Receipt

• 4/17/26 Tr. 50, 181, and 353-357
• The main quote is at Tr. 181; "at this time" is at Tr. 50
• The quote "You've already brought that up and I ruled on that" (Tr. 344:11-12) belongs here, answering Husband's structural-conflict point; it is not on N-090
• The "Maybe." answer is at 5/29/26 Tr. 53:9-15 and is carried at N-108

Spawned by: N-069, N-078

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-04-17

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

an eight-hour trial day on Wife's motion, held while the case was stayed; Husband's noticed motions had waited nine months for any hearing at all

What the law required

A stay entered by written order stays in force until an order lifts it; a court speaks through its written orders. Fla. R. App. P. 9.310 governs the stay, and the Second District's September 8, 2025 order approved it "without prejudice to the parties to seek relief from the stay in the trial court" (1150 Doc 234). No order ever lifted the August 1, 2025 stay.

What happened

On April 17, 2026, Judge Felix presided over an eight-hour evidentiary day, primarily on Wife's guardian ad litem motion, while the August 1, 2025 stay stood unlifted by any order. The hearing ended unfinished. This unlifted stay is also the predicate the Bar's later closure letter got wrong (N-121). [EXCUSED]

Baseline deviation

A stay means the case stops until an order lifts it. The court directed Wife's counsel to prepare the order lifting it, and he never submitted one: his concession on the record is "it slipped through the cracks, and I didn't submit it." The same court that had not reached Husband's noticed motions in nine months convened a full evidentiary day for Wife's motion while the stay stood.

Receipt

• 4/17/26 transcript 23:1-9: Wife's counsel conceding "it slipped through the cracks, and I didn't submit it," and attributing delay to Husband: "Mr. Hanson had numerous objections to the order"
• 1150 Doc 225
• 2D2025-1936 Doc 014
• the never-entered stay-lift order at N-060
• the waiting motions at N-056 and N-057
• Certified transcript 10/17/25, Tr. 37:19-40:15: stay lifted on both parties' requests; Wife's counsel directed to prepare the order. Stay entered 8/1/25 on Husband's motion (Doc 225). The quoted concession is trimmed; the full passage, with counsel's stated reason, is at N-060.

Spawned by: N-060

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-05-01

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

Husband asked the court to write down its own factual findings; the entire answer was a checked box reading "The matter is not an emergency and should be handled in the normal course," and the findings are still unwritten.

What the law required

Due process requires a reviewable record. Art. I, s. 9, Fla. Const.; U.S. Const. amend. XIV. "Every judge has a duty to enter within a reasonable time an order or judgment on every matter submitted to that judge," and to report to the chief judge each month every matter held under advisement more than 60 days. Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.215(g)(1). A trial court's refusal to make findings prejudices appellate review (Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 791 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Ruberg v. Ruberg, 858 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)), and where a statute conditions relief on a finding, omitting it is itself a departure from the essential requirements of law (Oldham v. Greene, 263 So. 3d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); Asteberg v. Russell, 144 So. 3d 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)).

What happened

On 5/1/26 Husband's emergency motion for written findings of fact (Docs 296 and 297) drew handling orders only, Docs 298 and 299. The checked disposition on each reads "The matter is not an emergency and should be handled in the normal course." No merits ruling issued and the findings remain unwritten. Doc 297 contains the wrong document, the Bar's motion to quash, and the corrected motion is missing from the records tree. [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

Rule 2.215(g)(1) gives every judge a duty to enter an order on every matter submitted, within a reasonable time, and written findings are what make a ruling reviewable (Broadfoot; Ruberg). Section 61.401 conditioned the guardian appointment then pending on a best-interest finding. Written findings would have put the underlying facts on the record where they could be reviewed. Deferring the request matches the declaration at N-091, that findings would be made only if an appellate court required them.

Receipt

• Docs 296 and 297
• Docs 298 and 299 at p. 2, the checked-box disposition, quoted
• The corrected motion does not appear in the record as swept.

Spawned by: N-091

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-05-18

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

asked to take judicial notice of the case in which he is himself a named defendant, the judge sustained the other side's relevance objection from the bench, stated no ground of his own, and entered no written order.

What the law required

Section 90.202(5) and (6), Florida Statutes, permit judicial notice of court records and official acts, and section 90.203 makes it mandatory: "[a] court shall take judicial notice of any matter in s. 90.202 when a party" requests it, gives the adverse party notice, and furnishes sufficient information. Doc 303 did each. A ruling either way is entered in writing so it can be reviewed.

What happened

Docs 303, 304 and 305, filed the night of 5/18/26 into the early hours of 5/19/26 and running roughly 761 pages, asked the court to take judicial notice of the mandamus case and related records. On 6/10/26 Judge Felix refused them from the bench: "At this time I'm going to sustain the objection to the request for judicial notice on those matters." He adopted the opposing relevance objection, stated no ground of his own, and entered no written order. [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

Section 90.203 makes judicial notice mandatory once a party requests it with notice to the other side and furnishes the records; Doc 303 attached 38 exhibits and was served through the portal. An order either way, granting or denying, would have put the mandamus at N-058 and the judge's own status in it on the 1150 record. What issued instead was an oral ruling adopting the opposing party's objection, with no ground of the court's own and nothing in writing, so nothing on the record states why.

Receipt

• Docs 303, 304 and 305, filed 5/18-5/19/26, 761 pages across the three
• Doc 303 is the Request for Judicial Notice and Docs 304 and 305 are the compendium volumes it attaches
• 6/10/26 Tr. 22:17-19

Spawned by: N-058

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-05-28

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

a motion asking the court to hear the discovery first and the guardian ad litem second went unruled, and four weeks later the guardian ad litem was appointed with the sequencing question still open.

What the law required

Rule 2.545(a), Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin., directs the judge to "take charge of all cases at an early stage" and "control the progress of the case thereafter," and Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.200 supplies the case-management tool. Rule 12.350 gave Wife thirty days to respond or object to the third request, and silence preserves no objection; Rule 12.380 makes the motion to compel the court's to decide.

What happened

Husband filed Doc 321 on 5/28/26, seeking the return or escrow of $6,000 paid to Davis, a separate sum from the guardian ad litem retainer (N-134); an order compelling Davis's billing, source-of-funds records, and Bar-communication records; and priority for the discovery and recording motions before any guardian ad litem. Judge Felix never ruled on it. Four weeks later he appointed the guardian ad litem with the sequencing motion still unresolved (N-125). The underlying third request to produce has itself never drawn a response, an objection, or a ruling, 571 days of silence as of 9/15/26 (N-037). The motion remains unruled. [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

Rule 2.545(a) puts the judge in charge of the progress of the case, and summary relief waits for the discovery bearing on the issue (Brandauer, 2d DCA; Holl v. Talcott). An order on this motion would have compelled Davis's billing, the source of his funds, and the Bar communications (N-031), on a request Wife never answered or objected to. None was entered. The sequencing motion sat unruled while the guardian ad litem track ran to its order.

Receipt

• Doc 321, Filing #249121023 (DIN confirmed against the live docket; formerly cited as "311")
• Ruling sweep complete as of 8/7/26: every order-titled file after Doc 163 was checked, 35 or more, and none touches the third request to produce
• Doc 210's emergency finding had no substantive follow-through
• The "not denied" statement rests on the motion's own characterization of Wife's reply
• Third request to produce #140

Spawned by: N-011, N-031, N-037

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-05-29

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

asked whether he knew he was a defendant in a pending case against the circuit, the judge answered "I may be"; asked whether he would ever find any facts about Husband's constitutional rights, and after reframing the question himself, he answered "Maybe."

What the law required

Article I, section 9 and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee a fair tribunal: "[N]o man can be a judge in his own case" (In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955)), and recusal is required whenever "the probability of actual bias. is too high to be constitutionally tolerable" (Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 872 (2009)). The right to be heard "includes the right to introduce evidence at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner" and to cross-examine (Baron v. Baron, 941 So. 2d 1233, 1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)), and a court hears the motions it notices.

What happened

At the 5/29/26 hearing Judge Felix was asked whether he knew he was a defendant in the mandamus case; he said he might be, and declined to disqualify himself. Asked whether he would ever find facts about Husband's constitutional rights, the court reframed the question and answered "Maybe." He sustained relevance objections to Husband's questions about the Bar complaint (Tr. 43:2-5, 44:25-45:4), and left unanswered the filed representation that the Bar took no action on Husband's complaint, the paragraph carded at N-105 that the Bar has never corrected.

He confirmed the sanctions motion was on the notice. Later in the same hearing, when Wife's counsel asked whether to remove everything else from the notice for the continued hearing, the court answered: "We're not going to get to the rest of that stuff. That's my lunch break." The sanctions motion, DIN 239, is now set within the October 9, 2026 hearing, still unheard. [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

Article I, section 9 guarantees a fair tribunal: "[N]o man can be a judge in his own case" (In re Murchison). Husband renewed his motion on the judge's status as a defendant in Husband's pending records suit, defended by the office then appearing against Husband in this case (N-058, N-109). The judge answered "I may be," declined the motion "at this time," and made no finding on his status or on any fact. Two certified transcripts show it: 4/17/26 at Tr. 181 and 5/29/26 at Tr. 53.

Receipt

• 5/29/26 hearing transcript, page and line
• Tr. 43:2-5, 45:5-9, 46:7-14, 47:9-13, 52, 53:9-15, 231:19-23, 249:19-250:2
• "I may be." is at Tr. 46:7-14; the court's reframed question, "Are you asking me in the future at some point if I might?", travels with the "Maybe." at Tr. 53:9-15
• "That's my lunch break." is at Tr. 250:2, the court speaking
• Tr. 45:5-9: the Bar "did not act" representation, quoted verbatim
• Tr. 231:19-23 (the noticing) and Tr. 249:19-250:2 (the stripping) are two connected passages: the second refers only to unnamed "other motions" and "the rest of that stuff" and does not name the sanctions motion

Spawned by: N-091

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-05-29

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix (custodian motion argued by Sr. AAG Schwieterman)

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

all three of Husband's witnesses were excused from the bench in one hearing, and the motion excusing the court's own records custodian was argued by the Senior Assistant Attorney General whose office defends this judge in the records case.

What the law required

Article I, section 9: the right to be heard "includes the right to introduce evidence at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner" and to cross-examine (Baron v. Baron, 2d DCA). A protective order requires good cause shown on the record (Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.280), and a subpoena is quashed only if "unreasonable and oppressive" (Rule 12.410); the movant carries that burden, and a blanket release without a good-cause finding is legally insufficient.

What happened

On 5/29/26 Judge Felix quashed all three of Husband's witness subpoenas from the bench. He excused Vivian Cortes Hodz as "not necessary". He excused G. Samarkos of Harris, Hunt & Derr as not relevant to any other basis. He excused the 13th Circuit records custodian as "not the appropriate avenue". The custodian motion was argued by the Senior Assistant Attorney General whose office defends Judge Felix in the mandamus case. He directed the movants to draft their own orders. None of the three witnesses ever testified. The written orders that followed carry no findings either (N-112, N-113). [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

Good cause, found on the record, is the movant's burden before a witness is released, and impartiality is required where the judge's own litigation counsel argues the motion. Rule 2.420(l) requires expedited review in the records case that counsel defends; that case had been pending for months (N-058). The quash motions were filed one to two days before the hearing, leaving no chance to respond in writing, and one movant's counsel conceded that the request "is the most logical request that Mr. Hanson has made." The concession changed nothing.

Receipt

• 5/29/26 Tr. 101-157 (the quash extract): excusing Samarkos "not relevant," and to "any other basis?" the answer was "No."
• The Attorney General's dual role is preserved on the record
• Downstream written orders: Doc 325 (6/2/26) and Docs 326 and 327 (6/3/26)

Spawned by: N-058, N-108

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-05-30

Actor

Judge Felix / Div A chambers

Institution

13th Cir. Fam. Div. A

Mechanism

the same chambers gave the guardian ad litem hearing a date twelve days out; for the 30-minute hearing Husband needed first, the 5/27/26 offer was 63 days out, and it was heard on 7/7, twelve days after the guardian ad litem had already been granted.

What the law required

Rule 2.545(a) puts the judge in charge of the progress of the case, and the court's calendar answers to the court, not to a litigant's consent. Hearing time from one chambers is allocated even-handedly, and summary relief waits for the discovery bearing on the issue (Brandauer, 2d DCA; Holl v. Talcott).

What happened

The court fast-tracked the guardian ad litem hearing, set for June 11, 2026, twelve days from the 5/30/26 email. For the 30-minute hearing on the Bar's protective-order and quash motion, the same chambers made two offers: on 5/27/26 the earliest window for a 30-minute Zoom hearing was 63 days out; on 6/2/26 the judicial assistant offered 7/7 and 7/14. It was heard 7/7/26, after the 6/25/26 grant. The disparity is documented in writing on 5/30/26 and again on 6/2/26. The 5/30 question was put in a scheduling channel, so no email-channel rule explains what followed: it has drawn no answer in 108 days as of 9/15/26. [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

Hearing time is allocated even-handedly. Both requests were pending in the same chambers the same week. One drew multi-hour blocks within days; for the other, a 30-minute hearing, the earliest offer was 63 days out. That let the guardian ad litem question be decided on 6/25 before the Bar-handling evidence was heard on 7/7, where it was then quashed (N-130). Heard in order, that evidence would have entered the record before the appointment was decided.

Receipt

• The 5-30-26 email PDF; offer dates at pages 3 and 6
• The 6/2/26 email at its page 6 contains dates only and no sentence addressing the explanation request; it offers 7/7 and 7/14 for the 30-minute hearing
• Comparator: on 5/8/26 a 5-hour in-person block was reset 21 days out; nineteen days later, on 5/27/26, the earliest 30-minute window was 63 days out
• Intervals recomputed and confirmed: 5/8 to 5/29/26 is 21 days; 5/27 to 7/29/26 is 63 days; 5/30/26 to 8/17/26 is 79 days
• The twelve-day figure is computed

Spawned by: N-107

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-06-02

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

the witness who holds Husband's own former firm's record of the 2024 discovery refusals was "fully released" by an order that states no findings and no legal basis anywhere on its face.

What the law required

A protective order requires good cause shown on the record (Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.280, incorporating Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)), and a subpoena is quashed only if "unreasonable and oppressive" (Rule 12.410). The movant carries that burden, and a blanket release with no good-cause finding is legally insufficient. Article I, section 9 guarantees the right to introduce evidence at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner (Baron v. Baron, 2d DCA).

What happened

On 6/2/26 Judge Felix signed Doc 325 releasing G. Samarkos of Harris, Hunt & Derr, Husband's own former counsel. The order says she is "fully released". It contains no findings and states no legal basis on its face. Samarkos never testified. [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

Good cause is the movant's burden, and the order states none. Findings would have put the ruling's grounds on the record, told Husband what to narrow or cure, and given a reviewing court something to review. This order is the written form of the 5/29/26 bench quash (N-109), and the witness released is Husband's own former counsel at Harris, Hunt & Derr, the firm whose file covers the 2024 discovery refusals. Any scope concern was curable by narrowing; the order releases her in full.

Receipt

• Doc 325, e-signed 6/2/26 9:08:34 PM
• Comparator on timing: this order and the custodian order at Doc 326 issued about 6 days after their motions were filed on 5/27/26, while the Bar officials' motion carried 46 days to an oral ruling and 102 days to a written order, entered 9/1/26 (N-130)

Spawned by: N-109

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-06-03

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

the order releasing the court's own records custodian states no findings and no legal basis, and it was entered twice: Doc 327 is a byte-identical duplicate of Doc 326.

What the law required

A protective order requires good cause shown on the record (Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.280, incorporating Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)), and a subpoena is quashed only if "unreasonable and oppressive" (Rule 12.410); the movant carries that burden. A parallel public-records remedy does not divest the court of power to receive relevant evidence in the case before it, and Article I, section 9 guarantees the right to introduce that evidence at a meaningful time (Baron v. Baron, 2d DCA).

What happened

On 6/3/26 Judge Felix signed Doc 326, which "fully released" the 13th Circuit records custodian and the Trial Court Administrator. He entered no findings. Doc 327 is a byte-identical duplicate. The custodian never testified. [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

Good cause is the movant's burden, and the order states none in either copy. This is the order that closed the records-custodian route, seeded at N-037: the written form of the 5/29/26 bench quash (N-109), where the motion excusing this custodian was argued by the Senior Assistant Attorney General whose office defends the signing judge in the mandamus. The subpoena sought the April 4, 2025 hearing video. The court administrator's own letters (N-053) invoke section 119.071(3)(a)3, which permits release on good cause shown to a court of competent jurisdiction; this court was one.

Receipt

• Docs 326 and 327, e-signed 6/3/26 4:55:51 PM

Spawned by: N-109

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Spawned by: N-108, N-113

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-06-17

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix (signing); Lawrence Hodz, counsel for non-party Vivian Cortes Hodz (proposing the order)

Institution

13th Cir. 24-DR-001150 (Judge Felix)

Mechanism

a non-party's lawyer submitted a proposed order at 9:42 AM and had it signed by 1:47 PM the same day, about 4 hours and 5 minutes

What the law required

Rule 2.545(a) puts the judge in charge of the progress of the case. Rule 2.215(g)(1) gives every matter submitted the same duty: a ruling within a reasonable time. Signing velocity is the judge's choice, and the choices are the record.

What happened

On 6/17/26 Judge Felix signed a protective order about 4 hours and 5 minutes after Lawrence Hodz, counsel for non-party Vivian Cortes Hodz, submitted the proposed order at 9:42 AM. Doc 336 carries a Felix stamp of 1:47:24 PM. It grants the motion, finds the subpoena "not relevant", denies fees, and recites that the matter was heard 5/29. [PENDING]

Baseline deviation

Velocity is a choice, and the choices are the dataset. Two like-for-like figures exist for proposed orders submitted to the same chambers in the same case: about 4 hours 5 minutes here, and about 19 hours 54 minutes at N-128. A third number, the 827-day age of the N-003 lineage as of August 21, 2026, is offered as scale only, not a matched comparison.

Receipt

• Doc 336 (Felix JAWS stamp 6/17/2026 1:47:24 PM).
• The proposed order as served is held off docket, Filing 250544732 per the e-service receipt, 9:42 AM.
• The 4h05m figure rests on the e-service receipt alone.
• The pendency comparator appears at N-003.

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-06-25

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

the order appointing a guardian ad litem over Husband's children makes no finding that either parent is unfit, cites no statute and no rule, names no guardian, and recites a hearing on a date when no session took place

What the law required

A parent's interest in the care, custody, and control of his children is a fundamental liberty interest (Art. I, s. 9; Fourteenth Amendment). Section 61.401 conditions the power on a finding, "if the court finds it is in the best interest of the child, the court may appoint a guardian ad litem," and omitting a required finding is itself a departure from the essential requirements of law (Asteberg; Riley, 2d DCA). Summary relief waits for the discovery bearing on the issue (Brandauer; Holl), and the order must recite the proceedings accurately.

What happened

On 6/25/26 Judge Felix ordered a guardian ad litem (Doc 337) on Wife's motion of 12/13/24. There is no unfitness finding. No statute or rule appears on the order's face. No guardian ad litem is named. The order recites hearings including "May 22, 2026," and no session occurred that day; the actual date was 5/29, confirmed by four documents. He entered it while the sequencing motion asking that discovery be heard first sat unruled (N-107) and while every discovery motion sat unruled. The motion it granted alleged no incident, no date, no observation and no witness about the children, and its only factual allegations about Husband were four quotations from his own May 2024 filing (N-001). Discovery-first sequencing would have produced rulings on the older motions before any appointment issued. The appointment issued first. [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

Section 61.401 lets a court appoint a guardian ad litem in a case touching a parent's fundamental liberty interest only on a finding that the appointment is in the child's best interest. The order states three things: Wife's concerns, Husband's own statement that he is a good parent, and the court's belief that a guardian would aid its decision-making. It names no fact about either child, and its hearing-date recital matches the superseded notice, not the record. The motion had stood 544 days; the order issued 15 days later.

Receipt

• Doc 337, e-signed 6/25/26 4:11:37 PM.
• 5/29/26 Tr. 59:2-5 (Davis: the guardian ad litem and psychological evaluation motions "pending for 532 days").
• 6/10/26 Tr. 29:3-4 (Davis: "pending for 544 days"). Both quotations rest on the transcript text layer; the page images have not been separately checked.
• Older gating discovery motions drew no hearing in the same courtroom in the same period; the psychological-evaluation motion recited in the same breath still sat unruled at 641 days as of 9/15/26.

Read the source document: Doc 337, Order Granting Motion for Appointment of Guardian ad Litem (6/25/2026, redacted public copy), p. 1

Spawned by: N-018, N-107, N-061

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-07-03

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix (signing); Scott Paul Davis (withdrawing counsel; e-service address thereafter Hunter Law Group)

Institution

13th Cir. 24-DR-001150 (Judge Felix)

Mechanism

opposing counsel's own exit order, sent direct to chambers, was signed in 19 hours and 54 minutes; the entered order gave him more than the stipulation asked, releasing him "forever relieved of the responsibility's attendant thereto" [sic]

What the law required

Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.505(f) allows withdrawal by leave of court on motion with client consent or stipulation. Withdrawal ends the representation, not the court's jurisdiction over counsel's conduct in matters already pending (Moakley v. Smallwood, Fla. 2002; Pino v. Bank of N.Y., Fla. 2013), and an order reaching a non-stipulating party's pending claims issues on notice and an opportunity to be heard (Art. I, s. 9). Rule 2.215(g)(1) gives every matter submitted the same reasonable-time duty; signing speed is a choice, and the choices are the record.

What happened

The joint stipulation for leave to withdraw was e-filed 7/2/26 at 11:56:53 AM (Doc 338), and a proposed order and a letter went direct to chambers at 12:22 and 12:28 PM. Judge Felix signed the order the next morning at 7:50:35 AM (Doc 344), 19 hours 53 minutes and 42 seconds later. The stipulation asked only that Wife and Davis "agree to the release of Scott P. Davis, Esq. and HUNTER LAW, P.A. to withdraw as counsel for the Wife." The entered order grants more: Davis and Hunter Law "are allowed to withdraw as attorney of record and are forever relieved of the responsibility's attendant thereto" [sic]. No reservation of jurisdiction over withdrawing counsel appears anywhere in it. Husband's motion for rehearing of this withdrawal order is still pending. [PENDING]

Baseline deviation

Rule 2.505(f) allows withdrawal by stipulation; the court's jurisdiction over withdrawing counsel's conduct in pending matters survives it (Moakley; Pino). Same judge, same case, same mechanism: counsel's own exit order was signed in under 20 hours, and Husband, party to no stipulation, was heard on none of it. His Doc 22 motion (N-003) had stood 827 days as of August 21, 2026 with no written order, and his proposed order memorializing the court's own 12/19/24 oral ruling has never been signed. His 7/23/26 written request drew "The court will not get involved in scheduling disputes via email".

Receipt

• Doc 338 (Filing #251698136, e-filed 7/2/26 11:56:53 AM; e-signatures Sarah Hanson 11:42 AM, Scott Paul Davis 11:09 AM; submitted by Hunter Law).
• Doc 344 (e-signed 7/3/26 7:50:35 AM), single page; quotes verbatim from the faces. Elapsed 19 hours, 53 minutes, 42 seconds.
• E-service notices for Filings 251698136, 251701417 and 251702076; JAWS signing notice 7/3.
• On 7/6/26 Husband filed a Notice of Objection and Motion for Clarification re Retained Jurisdiction (Doc 341) directed at the release language; Wife, self-represented thereafter, responded 7/12 (Doc 345).
• The conformed-copies block lists both parties as self-represented at entry.
• The proposed order as served to chambers on 7/2 at 12:22 and 12:28 PM has not been retrieved for comparison against the entered order's language, and the portal links have expired.
• Clarity note: the pending motion here is Husband's rehearing motion on this withdrawal order, not the sanctions motions, which are pending on their own rows at N-056 and N-057.
• Related decision points: N-133, N-139.

Spawned by: N-003, N-110

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-07-07

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir. (Bar's Doc 309 vs. Hanson's DIN 316)

Mechanism

Bar counsel argued three rule grounds by name, the court found none of them, and the four Bar officials' subpoenas were quashed with two of the four sitting in the room

What the law required

Article I, section 9: a party may subpoena relevant, non-privileged evidence and make a record (Baron v. Baron, 2d DCA). A subpoena is quashed only if "unreasonable and oppressive" (Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.410) and a protective order requires good cause shown (Rule 12.280); the movant carries that burden, with findings on the grounds it argued. Under Rule 3-7.1(b), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, a closed file's correspondence with the respondent is public record, and under Article I, section 24 the custodian carries the burden of any exemption.

What happened

On 7/7/26 Judge Felix granted the four Bar officials' motion to quash and made no rule-factor findings. Two of the four sat in the hearing: Kelley and Courtemanche both confirmed their presence. Bar counsel argued the subpoenas were oppressive, harassing, and irrelevant. The court found none of those grounds; its sole ground was that subpoenaing those individuals was not procedurally appropriate in a family law case.

Husband set a September 2025 letter describing a multi-level Bar investigation against the Bar's own filed statement that it "did not act" (N-105). The court replied: "I heard that. I heard that, Mr. Hanson." Then it quashed. Husband gave an oral preservation demand for the Bar's electronics, 32 days after the Bar wrote the records had been disposed of (N-116). Judge Felix directed Bar counsel to prepare the order; it was entered on 9/1/26, 56 days after the oral grant (NEW-P5). [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

The movant's burden is good cause: oppression, harassment, relevance, burden. Bar counsel argued three by name; the ruling finds none of them and does not differentiate among the four subpoenas. A closed Bar file is public record under Rule 3-7.1(b) and Article I, section 24. What those subpoenas were the route to is the whole stake: which account of the Bar's handling of Husband's complaint is accurate, the September 2025 letter describing a multi-level investigation (N-055), or the Bar's own filed statement that it "did not act" (N-105).

Receipt

• July 7 mini transcript (Guldin, RPR, certified 7/13/26), not docketed; hearing 4:00 to 4:32 PM, 32 minutes.
• Cites: Tr. 4:19-23, 5:5-22, 6:23-7:3, 7:10-20, 8:9-18, 9:1-12, 9:13-10:8, 11:17-12:13, 12:25-13:3, 17:17-18:8, 20:3-10, 21:19-23:4, 23:18-24:14, 24:15-25:23, 26:10-16, 27:9-13, 27:20-28:6, 29:20-25, 30:9-10, 30:22-31:5, 31:6-18, 31:19-32:1.
• Kelley announced himself "for The Florida Bar" (Tr. 4:22-23); Courtemanche confirmed his own presence (5:21-22).
• Wife had argued in the same hearing that the Bar dispute was "procedurally improper to be raised within these proceedings" and that the court lacked jurisdiction "to permit the questioning or the depositions of these individuals because this is a divorce proceeding" (21:19-23:4). The word match ("procedurally") is recorded, and nothing is asserted about why.
• The ruling came in two parts, cut off at "I'm not --" (29:25) and resumed at 30:22 with "I've already ruled on the motion for guardian ad litem."
• Husband's preservation demand: "I've asked for The Florida Bar to maintain the electronics" (12:25-13:3).
• Asked whether the parallel oversight failures would simply continue, the court said "I'm not going to answer that question." (31:6-18). Asked whether it would decide due process: "There was a motion filed, it was duly noticed, I heard all sides, and I made a ruling." (31:19-32:1).
• Four transcript anomalies, none quoted on this card: a "MR. LONDOT: Yes." tag at 31:8 landing inside Husband's sentence, unattributable from the page; "the closure of the market" at 24:11 where context indicates "the matter"; "even mute" at 8:18 where "moot" is evident; "intentionally cursed and confusing" at 26:20 inside Husband's own remarks.
• Doc 309 p. 1 (movant list: Courtemanche, Schuyler, Kelley and Sheridan; Gangi is not a movant) and para. 5.
• Differential-timing comparators: Doc 325 (6/2/26) and Doc 326 (6/3/26), about 6 days from filing; this motion, filed 5/22/26, carried 46 days to the oral grant, and the written order issued 9/1/26, 102 days from filing and 56 days from the oral grant.
• "reviewed on three levels" is Husband's phrase in open court and is not the letter's phrase (see N-055).

Spawned by: N-055, N-105, N-121

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-07-22

Actor

Judge Felix / Div A chambers (judicial assistant Ellen Courtemanche, no known relation to Bar Deputy General Counsel Richard Courtemanche)

Institution

13th Cir. Fam. Div. A

Mechanism

Husband asked the court to put its own Doc 22 ruling in writing; the answer was "The court will not get involved in scheduling disputes via email" and seven August slots that all lapsed; the same court signed Wife's emailed order in 25 hours and set her an eight-hour hearing one day after she asked.

What the law required

Article I, section 9: the opportunity to be heard on a pending motion is a basic component of due process, and a litigant who followed the court's stated procedure is entitled to have his motions set and heard. Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.200 authorizes the court to set and prioritize pending motions, and Rule 12.285 requires the disclosure the announced ruling covered. A court of record speaks through its written orders.

What happened

On July 22, 2026 at 12:01 PM Husband filed his Motion to Set Pending Motions for Hearing and for Entry of an Order on Docket #22, and transmitted a five-page proposed order at 12:39 PM.

The court's entire engagement came the next afternoon: "The court will not get involved in scheduling disputes via email", plus seven case-management slots. Eight minutes later, in the same thread, the same court answered Wife's question with three offered eight-hour October dates (N-139). His request to notice one of the August slots drew no scheduling response, and all seven lapsed (N-139).

No order on the motion has ever been entered. This followed the court's own July 7 commitment, recorded in the opposing party's contemporaneous account, that its assistant "would reach out with proposed dates". Fifteen days later none had come.

As of August 7 the underlying Doc 22 motion stood at 813 days, its ruling still not in writing. [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

A court of record speaks through its written orders. The ruling on Husband's Doc 22 motion was announced from the bench on April 17 as "the Court ruling on Dock[et] 22" and never reduced to writing (N-090). Husband's motion asked for two ordinary things: enter the written order, and set his unheard motions for hearing. It produced one sentence about email etiquette, seven offered August slots, and no order. The same channel produced Wife's order in about 25 hours (N-134) and an eight-hour hearing for her one day after she asked (N-139).

Receipt

• Filing #253018138 (7/22/26 12:01 PM), the motion. The proposed order, Submission #253023609, 12:39 PM, unsigned and not docketed.
• The chambers email of 7/23 at 4:24 PM. The 4:24 PM figure is the capture; the quoted header reads 4:25 PM, so both are reported, and the interval to 4:32 PM is seven or eight minutes. Three captures agree.
• The 4:32 PM answer to Wife in the same thread, offering three eight-hour October dates (N-139).
• The seven offered August slots and their lapse (N-139).
• The opposing party's 7/22/26 written account of the 7/7 commitment.
• The chambers emails issue over the signature block of judicial assistant Ellen Courtemanche, no known relation to Bar Deputy General Counsel Richard Courtemanche.
• Day counts recomputed at build.

Spawned by: N-003

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-07-23

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir. Fam. Div. A

Mechanism

a party's email asking for the order was followed by a signed order in about 25 hours; the order bills Husband $3,000 within three days, imposes a paid communication service no motion asked, and was entered while his briefed challenge to the appointment sat unruled

What the law required

Article I, section 9 and the Fourteenth Amendment: a party is entitled to notice of the relief sought against him and an opportunity to be heard before it is ordered; an order adjudicating issues no pleading presented denies due process (Neumann; Worthington, 2d DCA). Section 61.16(1) requires the court to consider the parties' financial ability before imposing costs, and a guardian ad litem fee order without express ability-to-pay findings carries a "fatal flaw" (MacDonald, 4th DCA 2026; Levy, 3d DCA 2024). A fully briefed challenge to the appointment (Doc 342) is decided before the appointment is implemented.

What happened

Wife wrote to chambers at 10:27 AM on 7/22/26: "We are waiting on the Order approving one of the individuals". Judge Felix e-signed Doc 351 at 11:37:14 AM on 7/23/26, about 25 hours later. He made no finding of unfitness, no finding of harm, and no best-interest finding naming a fact about either parent. Paragraph 16 orders a $6,000 retainer due within three days at $325.00 an hour, split evenly, so it bills Husband $3,000, with a cease-work term on nonpayment. Paragraph 7 imposes mandatory paid OurFamilyWizard, which appeared in no motion. Paragraph 12 makes the guardian's file unobtainable by the parties. No proposed order circulated and no selection hearing was held. The order as served breaks mid-sentence at every interior page break, and its numbering jumps from 16 to 20. Judge Felix entered it while the briefed reconsideration of Doc 337 sat unruled, and it is still unruled. [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

Section 61.16(1) requires a finding on ability to pay before costs are imposed, and a guardian fee order without one carries a "fatal flaw" (MacDonald; Levy). This order bills Husband $3,000 within three days at $325 an hour, on a record where his sworn, unrebutted testimony is no income since 2024, and makes no finding on either parent's ability. OurFamilyWizard appeared in no motion; relief no pleading requested denies due process (Neumann). The fully briefed reconsideration (N-125) sat unruled while the order it challenged was implemented.

Receipt

• Doc 351, e-signed 7/23/26 11:37:14 AM. Paragraph 16 retainer due "within 3 days of entry" at "$325.00 per hour,"
• Wife's 7/22/26 10:27 AM email. Order PDF created 7/22 at 4:32 PM per metadata.
• Paragraph 16 also carries an ex parte enforcement clause on nonpayment. Paragraph 7's OurFamilyWizard duty carries a 24-hour response requirement. No complete copy of the order exists anywhere in the record.
• Docs 342 (reconsideration of Doc 337, filed 7/6, opposed 7/12) and 345.
• Doc 198 Tr. 87 (Wife's 4/4/25 testimony about Husband's refusal to enroll in OurFamilyWizard, the only prior surfacing of that subject; no motion ever requested it).
• Doc 337 to Doc 351 is 28 days.
• The certified Clerk copy has not been obtained, and the Clerk and JAWS copies have not been compared.
• Pendency comparators are carried at N-003.

Read the source document: Doc 351, Order Appointing Guardian ad Litem as filed (7/23/2026), para. 16 at p. 4

Spawned by: N-125

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-07-23

Actor

Judge Felix (undecided stay request); Wife (private enforcement)

Institution

13th Cir. Fam. Div. A

Mechanism

the three-day clock to pay his $3,000 half of a guardian ad litem's retainer ran out before the guardian had ever contacted Husband, and the motion he filed on July 28 to stay or extend it drew only a same-afternoon checkbox form, "not an emergency and should be handled in the normal course," and no decision on the stay or extension, then or since

What the law required

Article I, section 9: an obligation imposed by court order carries process before it is enforced, and any contempt for nonpayment requires a finding of present ability to comply (Bowen v. Bowen, Fla. 1985). A motion for stay pending review is made in the lower tribunal first, which has continuing jurisdiction to grant or deny it (Fla. R. App. P. 9.310(a)); a verified stay or extension request gets determined.

What happened

The order appointing the guardian ad litem, entered Thursday 7/23/26, required the retainer "within 3 days of entry of this Order." At 7:45:45 AM on Tuesday 7/28/26 Husband filed a verified emergency motion for reconsideration, stay, or extension. At 4:13 PM the court checked one box: "The matter is not an emergency and should be handled in the normal course." The stay and extension were never decided. The court's three prior emergency responses had been the same kind of checkbox form (Docs 285, 298 and 299). That morning, at 8:18 AM, Wife wrote: "If you are going to copy our GAL, you need to pay her retainer so she is properly paid", with OurFamilyWizard enforcement. At 11:57 AM the next day, the guardian ad litem sent her first substantive communication: "I just found my introduction email in my drafts, so I have just sent it out. I apologize it was not sent out last week when it was intended." The three-day term ran out before the person to be paid had ever contacted the payor. [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

Due process attaches before an order's money term is enforced, and a stay request under Rule 9.310(a) is the trial court's to decide first. What is receipted is internal to the order's mechanics: a three-day payment clock set on 7/23 against an appointee whose first substantive contact came on 7/29, in an order served with four of its nine pages missing. The court signed the appointment in about 25 hours (N-134) and issued nothing on the merits of the stay or extension request, then or since.

Receipt

• The guardian ad litem's 7/29/26 email PDF, both pages.
• The 7/28 thread capture. The Filing #253388797 portal capture (the emergency motion).
• DIN 351 p. 4 para. 16, the appointing order's retainer term (e-signed 7/23/26 11:37 AM).
• DIN 354 pp. 1-2, the 7/28/26 4:13 PM handling order, one box checked.
• The court's three most recent emergency responses were "not an emergency" checkbox forms: Docs 285, 298 and 299.

Spawned by: N-134

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-07-28

Actor

Judge Felix chambers (judicial assistant Courtemanche)

Institution

13th Cir. Fam. Div. A

Mechanism

Husband sought a hearing by filed motion, by proposed order, and by an email accepting the court's own offered dates, and got no hearing, no order and no reply; Wife asked by email and had an eight-hour day set the next day, by the same court that six days earlier had written "The court will not get involved in scheduling disputes via email."

What the law required

Article I, section 9: the opportunity to be heard on a pending motion is a basic component of due process, and a litigant who conferred, agreed to a date, and appeared at the case management conference the court's procedure prescribes is entitled to have his motions set and heard (Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.200). A docket is administered even-handedly: a court that declares a scheduling channel closed does not run the same channel for one side.

What happened

At 8:14 AM on 7/28/26 Wife wrote to chambers: "Can you please reserve the October 9, 2026 at 9AM 8 hour day for this matter. Mr. Hanson has been unresponsive to coordination requests." That was sent 60 to 120 seconds after, and directly beneath in the same thread, Husband's 8:13:43 AM email: "I am available at any of the times you mention below."

After Wife's 7/29 10:45 AM follow-up, the court replied at 12:52 PM: "The hearing has been set for October 9, 2026 at 9:00am for 8-hours in-person." That is 2 hours and 7 minutes from her follow-up, one day from her request, and six days after the same court wrote "The court will not get involved in scheduling disputes via email" when the pending request was Husband's (N-133). Eight minutes after writing that sentence the same court answered Wife's 4:27 PM question with three 8-hour October dates, and the September 25 date was gone.

Husband's 7/29 11:28 AM email asking to notice one of the court's own offered August slots drew no scheduling response and remains unanswered. Seven August slots lapsed. Wife's Notice of Hearing was filed 7/30 at 9:24:11 AM (DIN 361). It reserves no court reporter. [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

A docket is administered even-handedly, and a court that declares a scheduling channel closed does not then run that same channel for one side. The answer to any channel defense is in the channel's own history: in the ten weeks before that sentence was written, eight chambers emails on the same case set hearings, reset hearings, offered slots, waived a cancellation notice, and instructed a party to file a notice of hearing. An eight-hour block had been discussed in July. The deviation claimed is the channel, the speed, and the lapse of the August slots, never that an October date was set.

Receipt

• The 7/28 thread capture. The 7-30-26 court email PDF pp. 3-4. The 7-29-26 guardian ad litem email PDF p. 4 for the 8:13:43 header. The Notice portal capture, Filing #253595130.
• Husband's route in full: the court's own 7/7 commitment that its assistant "would reach out with proposed dates" and none came; the filed motion with a five-page proposed order (N-133); his 7/29 email accepting one of the court's own offered August slots. It produced one sentence about email etiquette, no order, no scheduling reply, and seven lapsed slots.
• Channel history: eight chambers emails between 5/8/26 and 6/17/26, from the same judicial assistant on the same case, across five pages.
• An 8-hour hearing had been discussed at the 7/7 case management conference for motions "previously set but not addressed," in Wife's own 7/22 words.
• 7/28/26 8:14 AM to 7/29/26 12:52 PM is 28 hours 38 minutes.
• The 4:24 PM text appears in full at page 1 of the 7/28 thread capture. The 4:24 and 4:32 bodies are snippet captures, not full-body captures, and the native messages are not held.
• The 7/30 notice PDF's scope (which motions it sets) was unknown at capture, so nothing is asserted about it.
• The chambers emails issue over the signature block of judicial assistant Ellen Courtemanche.
• Setting one of the court's own August slots would have produced a hearing on the motions Husband asked to set (N-133). The slots lapsed.

Spawned by: N-133

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-07-29

Actor

Judge Felix (2.215(g)(1) reporting duty)

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

the rule requires a judge to report to the chief judge every month on any matter he has held more than 60 days; on 7/29/26 Husband filed six formal notices in one morning for six matters standing at 290 to 804 days

What the law required

Rule 2.215(g)(1) requires a judge to report matters under advisement 60 days or more to the chief judge each month. Rule 2.215(g)(2) and Form 2.604 are the litigant's prescribed notice instrument.

What happened

On 7/29/26 at 6:40:33 AM Husband filed six Form 2.604 Notices of Pending Matter in one filing, one each for six matters left undecided on this docket. The notices state day counts computed as of the filing date: DIN 22 at 804 days, DIN 111 at 548, DIN 163 at 491, DIN 177 at 470, DIN 239 at 299, and DIN 245 at 290. As of August 21, 2026 the same six stand at 827, 571, 514, 493, 322 and 313 days. Every party-computed figure recomputes exactly from the Clerk's docket dates. Six is the count of notices filed, not everything undecided: the pendency inventory at N-134 carries a seventh undecided matter, DIN 146, for which no notice was filed. [PENDING]

Baseline deviation

Rule 2.215(g)(1) sets the trigger at 60 days, and the litigant's prescribed instrument for raising it is the Form 2.604 notice under 2.215(g)(2). The deviation here is measured by the rule itself, the same construction as the word "[e]xpedited" in Rule 2.420(l) at N-058. The answer is checkable either way: a monthly report either lists these six matters or it does not.

Receipt

• Filing #253488214. Portal capture and the filed packet; the dates were recomputed with zero mismatches as of 8/1/26.
• Docketed as DIN 360.
• Note: Husband's 7/29 email said "5 notices"; the filed packet is six, and the filing record controls.

Spawned by: N-003, N-133

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-07-29

Actor

Judge Felix chambers (August-dates fork); Sr. AAG Schwieterman (embedded supervisor fork)

Institution

13th Cir. / OAG

Mechanism

on the same afternoon the same chambers set Wife's 8-hour hearing by email in 2 hours 7 minutes, Husband asked for the August dates the court had already offered and that any refusal be put in writing; no response to either appears in the record

What the law required

Article I, section 9: the opportunity to be heard on a pending motion is a basic component of due process. The request called for the August dates already offered or a refusal with a stated basis, and it put the supervisory layer on notice. Any answer is evidence.

What happened

On 7/29/26 at 1:40 PM Husband emailed for the August hearing dates the court had already offered, copying Chief Judge Sabella's judicial assistant and Attorney General counsel: "I am requesting the dates in August previously offered." He asked that any refusal be stated, and reiterated a separate demand to speak with a supervisor at the Attorney General's office. As of August 21, 2026 no response to either appears in the record, a statement scoped to the period searched. The only chambers communication after it in the window is the 7/30 10:12 AM case-manager redirect (N-143). [PENDING]

Baseline deviation

The request called for the August dates or a refusal with a stated basis, with the supervisory layer on notice. The channel was demonstrably open that same afternoon: the same chambers set Wife's 8-hour October hearing by email in 2 hours and 7 minutes (N-139). As of August 21, 2026 no response addressing either demand appears in the record, scoped to the period searched.

Receipt

• The as-sent PDF of the 7/29/26 1:40 PM email.
• Full text: "If the court is refusing to schedule anything before October, please respond to this email stating so, with any explanation the court will offer."
• Full text: "I'm reiterating my demand to speak with a supervisor within the attorney general's office. If you are continuing to refuse that request, please confirm so here."
• This card rests on the court's silences rather than on the email's adjectives, which are themselves in the record.

Spawned by: N-133, N-140

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-07-30

Actor

Judicial assistant Courtemanche / 13th Cir. (case manager Bekida Lee)

Institution

13th Cir. Fam. Div. A

Mechanism

the court closed itself as a correspondence channel and routed both parties to a case manager, the morning after Husband escalated to the chief judge's office.

What the law required

Rule 2.545(b) puts the judge in charge of the progress of the case. The record questions are the stated premise and the timing.

What happened

On 7/30/26 at 10:12 AM the court wrote: "Because neither party in this matter is currently represented by legal counsel, this case has been assigned to a case manager. Please direct any future communication regarding your case to your assigned case manager."

The email issued the morning after Husband's 7/29 1:40 PM escalation copying Chief Judge Sabella's judicial assistant and Attorney General counsel (N-142). It issued one day after he filed the six notices of pending matter (N-140), and eight days after the motion asking the court to put its own Doc 22 ruling in writing (N-133).

[PENDING]

Baseline deviation

Rule 2.545(b) keeps the progress of the case in the judge's charge. The record question is the timing. The routing issued the morning after Husband's escalation to the chief judge's office (N-142), one day after six Rule 2.215 notices of pending matter (N-140), and eight days after the motion asking the court to put its own Doc 22 ruling in writing (N-133). The chronology is the claim.

Receipt

• 7-30-26 court email PDF p. 1.
• The email issues over the signature block of judicial assistant Ellen Courtemanche. The case manager named in DIN 362 is Bekida Lee, 13th Cir.
• Whether this routing is routine for dockets postured as self-represented is not established on this record.

Spawned by: N-142, N-139

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Read the source document: Doc 351, Order Appointing Guardian ad Litem as entered 7/23/2026 (the five-page version)

Spawned by: N-019

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-08-07

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir. 24-DR-001150 (Judge Felix)

Mechanism

no order to show cause was ever issued; the unsworn contempt motion itself was set for hearing three days after it was filed, with one hour reserved for three motions, one of which asks the court to cut Husband's time with the children to alternate weekends as a sanction.

What the law required

Article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law, and civil contempt requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. The movant must prove a prior order, notice of it, and non-compliance, and contempt requires a finding of present ability to comply (Bowen); timesharing may not be modified as a contempt sanction (Duncan v. Brickman, 2d DCA 2017). The lawful options on 8/7/2026 were an order to show cause with a return date, denial, or setting the motion behind the matters already noticed.

What happened

On 8/4/2026 at 9:49:26 AM Wife filed a motion asking the court to hold Husband in contempt, to compel compliance, and to sanction him (DIN 364), 4 pages of motion plus 5 of exhibits, signed "/s/ [Wife], Esq., Florida Bar No. 065956." It is unsworn. No oath, no verification, no affidavit and no section 92.525 declaration appears anywhere in the nine pages. It cites no rule, no statute and no case, and it does not distinguish civil from criminal contempt.

On 8/7/2026 at 11:42:18 AM Judge Felix signed DIN 366, e-served the same day, setting it for hearing on 8/27/2026 at 2:00 PM with one hour reserved for all three motions. One of those three asks the court to reduce Husband's time with the children to alternate weekends as a stated sanction. No order to show cause has issued and none appears on the docket.

Three comparisons sit inside this same docket. Nine days before setting this motion, the same court checked "NOT AN EMERGENCY" on Husband's own 7/28 verified motion (DIN 354). The 7/30/2026 notice of continued evidentiary hearing sets 10/9/2026 for eight hours on ten enumerated matters under a footnote binding the court to hear motions "in the Order that they were filed," and this motion was filed after all ten and is being heard first. And Husband's own first-filed discovery motion, DIN 22, was filed 852 days ago. It drew an oral ruling on 4/17/2026 and still has no written order.

He filed a verified response and a motion to continue and re-set to 10/9/2026 on 8/15/2026. Both are undecided. [PENDING]

Baseline deviation

Article I, section 9 provides that no person shall be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law, and timesharing may not be modified as a contempt sanction (Duncan v. Brickman, 2d DCA). The options on 8/7/2026 were an order to show cause with a return date, denial, or setting the motion behind the matters already noticed. The court set the motion itself, unsworn and citing nothing, ahead of ten matters noticed for hearing in filing order, while two stay motions on the same order sat undecided.

Receipt

• DIN 366, the order setting hearing entered 8/7/2026, at its title, body, execution line, signature block, footer and copies list.
• DIN 364, filed 8/4/2026, all 9 pages read from the page images rather than the text layer. The only signature in the filing, at p. 4, is expressly a certificate-of-service signature, which is not a sworn verification.
• Two face-level mismatches, recorded verbatim and characterized as nothing: the clerk's docket event description reads "ORDER SETTING FINAL HEARING WITHOUT PRETRIAL CONFERENCE" while the word FINAL appears nowhere on the instrument, and the caption reads "Division: AP" while the case is Division A.
• DIN 354, the 7/28/2026 emergency-handling form. DIN 361, the 7/30/2026 notice, its ten matters and the filing-order footnote.
• The clerk docket snapshot of 8/15/26 covers DINs 347-366. Husband's 8/15/2026 filings: verified response, 24 pp.; motion to continue, 17 pp.
• Intervals: 8/4 to 8/27 is 23 days; 8/7 to 8/27 is 20 days.
• The DIN 361 phrase "No court reporter reserved" is a paraphrase. The actual text is "A court reporter has not been reserved at this time."
• Speed-of-relief distribution on this docket: N-123 (about 4 hours, a non-party's proposed order), N-128 (19h54m, opposing counsel's exit order), N-134 (about 25 hours, an order billing Husband $3,000), against N-139, where a filed motion, a proposed order, and acceptance of the court's own offered dates drew no hearing, no order, and no reply.

Spawned by: N-148, N-147

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.