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

Due process: a pending motion must be heard and determined. Doc 22 embeds a motion to compel roughly three years of Wife's financial information.

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, 827 days as of August 21, 2026, and still no written order exists on it. 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

Due process requires a court to hear and decide a pending motion. 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 even now.

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, 12/20/24); 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: one motion was granted on paper. The compel was granted 10/28/24 and the order entered 11/20/24. The amount was never liquidated, compliance was never required, and the records it reached were never produced (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 excusals ran one way.

What the law required

Rule 12.285's mandatory-disclosure text and stipulated deadlines bind both sides. A documented violation squarely presented draws a consequence. A compliance certificate is verified by the party under section 92.525, Florida Statutes, under penalties of perjury, and the verification reaches only as far as the periods and items the certificate itself covers.

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 on the rule's literal text (N-029). It states the rule and takes it back in the same sentence: 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

The disclosure rule binds both sides the same way. A compliance certificate is the party's own statement, sworn under penalties of perjury, and it reaches only the periods and the items the certificate itself names. When one party documents that the other missed the rule and puts that in front of the court, something is supposed to happen. Every innocent explanation for what followed predicts a random distribution: excusals falling on both sides, scattered across issues. This chain is one issue, one beneficiary, and nine months, all inside Judge Ayers's tenure. A single excusal is discretion.

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.
• The first-certificate defect (the verification swears a list is accurate to the best of the signer's knowledge and never that the rule was complied with) is carried from gate GATE_FNEW-W3 v2 and is stated here in characterized form. **The verbatim certificate text of Docs 044 p. 9 and 046 p. 9 is not reproduced in either source file, so no words are quoted from those two pages. `` pull both page images and quote the operative sentence of each before publish.**
• 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, and quoted material stays as spoken.
• The nine-month span runs from the first enumerated event (5/22/24) to the last (2/26/25) and recomputes at build, as does every day count.
• Carded elsewhere and 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

Address what is before the court. When a party shows that motions were retaliatory, and that the relief they sought was offered and declined on the record, dispose of them. Carrying them indefinitely maintains a live threat with no adjudicative purpose.

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 sat unruled 602 days as of 8/7/26; 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 addresses what is put before it. When a party shows that motions were filed in retaliation, and that the relief sought was offered and refused on the record, the court disposes of them rather than carrying them. A motion left pending costs the movant nothing while keeping a standing threat alive. The same shape appears in the regulator's only-open file (N-064) and the arc runs forward from the May 2024 filings (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

In the adversarial system the parties frame the issues and the court is the neutral arbiter of 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) (a court of appeals may not increase a sentence on its own initiative where the government never appealed); United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. 371 (2020) (a panel that recast the case around an issue the party never raised departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to be an abuse of discretion). Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.540(a) permits correction of clerical mistakes on the court's own initiative, which is a narrow exception and not a source of substantive terms. 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; these terms were requested by nobody. In fairness, Wife's motion did include a catch-all for "any other relief the Court finds necessary," and standard guardian-appointment forms may explain some boilerplate, without answering why no one was heard on it. What survives every fair reading: terms binding two parents appear in no party's papers, and an order 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, verified.
• Doc 337 (order granting, signed 6/25/2026, 2 pp., verified). Appointment-order terms quoted from the amended order, DIN 365, p. 8, verified; 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; Doc 80 para. (e), signed 4/28/26, carries the actual dates directive; Husband's Docs 85 and 86 para. 30, verified.
• 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).
• Doc 337 DIN.
• 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

Due process requires the court to decide the motion it made dispositive. The court conditioned all discovery on voiding the agreements (see N-018), and Doc 146 is that Casto challenge.

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: "Chris, 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 v. Casto, an agreement signed without financial disclosure can be challenged, and the challenge itself entitles the challenger to financial discovery. The entitlement attaches when the motion is filed, not when it is granted. So a court that makes a motion the gate to all discovery has to decide it. At the 12/19/24 hearing 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 August 17, 2026 the objection had gone more than five hundred days without a ruling, blocking the records that whole time.

What the law required

Rule 12.351 governs non-party production: an objection stops issuance until the court acts on it, so an objection that is never ruled on operates as a permanent quash without adjudication. Rule 2.215(f) requires judges to conclude submitted matters promptly. The burden posture matters: the objection is Wife's instrument, she asked for an expedited hearing on it herself, and the non-ruling has given her its full benefit without her ever having to carry it.

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, joined motions for sanctions and 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." A contemporaneous hearing memo records the successor judge would not rule on the request. More than a year later, Wife's own notice of continued hearing still lists it among matters yet to be heard. [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.
• The hearing-memo characterization that the successor judge "does not rule on the subpoena request" is drawn from a memo of that period.
• 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.

Date

2025-04-01 -> 2026-08-12

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix (the two orders and the sustained objection); Judge Kelly Ayers (the filing period); Scott Davis (the relevance objection)

Institution

13th Cir. Fam. Div. A

Mechanism

Husband's written objection to the cost and risk of a guardian ad litem sat on the docket 450 days before the order granting one and 478 days before the order pricing it at $6,000; neither order mentions cost, risk, or ability to pay.

What the law required

F.S. 61.401 conditions an appointment on the child's best interest. A court that imposes a monetary obligation on a party must take evidence of the amount and of the party's ability to pay. A written objection squarely presented before the relief issues must be engaged, granted or denied with a reason, not passed over by the order deciding the same subject.

What happened

On 4/1/25 Husband filed a notice opposing Wife's guardian ad litem, psychological evaluation, and vocational-file motions, attaching a magazine article warning that "There is always a risk that a Guardian ad Litem will make recommendations that are not in a child's best interest". He raised it at the 5/29/26 hearing; Wife's counsel objected on relevance, Judge Felix agreed, and the question was narrowed to whether the witness had read that article. She had not. Doc 337 granted the appointment on 6/25/26 on findings that mention neither cost, risk, ability to pay, nor the notice; its only cost sentence divides an unstated amount equally. Doc 351 then ordered "$6,000.00 within 3 days of entry of this Order" at $325 per hour, with no cost evidence and no mention of the notice. 498 days from filing to 8/12/26, with no engagement in any order. [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

A court that orders a parent to pay takes evidence of what it costs and what that parent can pay. The objection here was not late or buried: captioned as opposition to the motion it opposed, it sat on the docket over a year before either order issued, and was raised aloud in court. In candor, the attachment is advisory literature, not authority. The documented objection sat through three hearing days and two orders and drew no sentence.

Receipt

• Doc 169 (Filing #220088124, e-filed 4/1/25 5:32:32 PM, 3 pp.); the article text is at pp. 2-3, including the sentence that a party "will have spent thousands of dollars on an investigation and report that could cost them custody of their beloved child."
• 5/29/26 Tr. 38:6-17, 38:24-39:2, 39:4-9, 39:21-24 (relevance objection, "I agree," narrowing, and the sustained speculation objection on the follow-up question).
• Doc 337 (2 pp.) and Doc 351 (5 pp.), both read in full, neither referencing Doc 169, the article, cost evidence, or ability to pay.
• Doc 345 (3 pp.), no reference. Doc 342 p. 5.
• Caution on file: Doc 169's certificate of service carries a stale "13th day of December, 2024" template date; the 4/1/25 clerk stamp controls and every day count here uses it.
• DINs 346-350 and 352-359 are absent from this tree, so the absence of an order on Doc 342 (the reconsideration motion raising this a third time) is stated as to this record, not as a certified docket absence.
• Related decision points: N-038, N-134.

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

F.S. 47.122 governs venue transfer. Due process requires an impartial tribunal (Caperton preserved).

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

Venue is discretionary, and no baseline is asserted for the denial itself. Two things in the order are not discretion: fees were reserved for a party who never requested them, and an order drafted by the winning party is drafted after the decision, so its reasons are the drafter's, not the record'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.
• Doc 204.

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

Due process requires a ruling on an emergency motion for an immediate ruling on subpoena and discovery objections.

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

a filed record of dated interference with the children's time drew one checkbox and no finding on any item, and more than a year later no judge has made a finding on any of it.

What the law required

A documented record of ongoing interference with parenting time, presented by motion, must be addressed on its content, by hearing or by findings.

What happened

By 6/28/25 Husband had filed the record (Docs 206, 207, 208). 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." The normal course never came. 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. [EXCUSED: the court treated the filing as an emergency-screening question and has still 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

A stay that freezes all discovery rests on stated reasons. A motion's remaining prongs are ruled on, not silently dropped.

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

Due process requires the court to hear and determine a sanctions motion, a request for findings, and misconduct referrals.

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

A sanctions motion normally draws a ruling. This one has drawn none, either way, in more than ten months. A motion to compel filed by Wife's counsel on the same docket 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: 610 days as of 8/7/26.

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

Public access and due process require a ruling on an emergency motion to record proceedings.

What happened

Husband filed the emergency motion to record proceedings on 10/12/25 (Doc 245). Judge Felix returned a checkbox 98 minutes later (Doc 251): "not an emergency. normal course". Doc 247 had promised the motion would be addressed at the 10/17/25 hearing; no order issued there either (Doc 250). It was first actually 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 answered the emergency half of that question in 98 minutes and has not answered the request itself in about nine months. 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); PDF-content authentication flagged.
• Doc 247 (handling order reciting full title); Doc 250 ("no order was issued"); Doc 251 (98-minute checkbox).
• 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, analyzed 8/13/26.

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 four 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

Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.330 governs disqualification, and 2.330(h) requires that a facially sufficient motion be granted without passing on the truth of the facts alleged. Due process supplies an independent floor: no one may judge a cause in which he has an interest, In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955); disqualification is required where the probability of actual bias is too high to be constitutionally tolerable, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009); and a judge who had significant, personal involvement as a prosecutor in a critical decision regarding the defendant’s case may not later sit on it, Williams v. Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. 1 (2016). Mandamus supplies the frame that makes the question answerable either way. A Chapter 119 mandamus is a summary, duty-focused proceeding in which the respondent's role is to answer the alternative writ, Radford v. Brock, 914 So. 2d 1066, 1067-68 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), and the dispute is whether a ministerial duty exists and has been performed, Town of Manalapan v. Rechler, 674 So. 2d 789, 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). So either the named judges are nominal custodians with no substantive stake, in which case no merits advocacy on their behalf is proper, or they have a stake, in which case Murchison and Williams are engaged. None of these authorities turns on a finding of actual partiality, and none has been applied to this fact pattern by any court in this record.

What happened

The conflict takes three forms across four 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. Every tribunal asked about this disposed of it without reaching it: a successive-motion rule, an eight-day denial without opinion, and on 4/17/26 the trial judge refused six times to make findings: "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". Asked the same question on 7/7/26, the answer was "I'm not going to answer that question." In fairness, the rule applies on its face, and an out-of-circuit judge was later assigned. The record contains no answer to the question itself. [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

Due process forbids anyone to judge a cause in which he has an interest. Florida's disqualification rule gives successor judges a narrower, discretionary track, and that track is what the order here rested on. That question was put to four tribunals, each disposing of it on a ground that made the merits unnecessary; no court has yet said why a judge named as a defendant in a pending 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 denied 8 days after filing, one day after fee paid, no opinion, no response required (N-078).
• 4/17/26 transcript (six refusals to make findings). 7/7/26 transcript ("I'm not going to answer that question").
• 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

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

• OFF_DOCKET 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 and not used).
• Court declined to rule "on the face of the motion. without a hearing".
• Tally note: 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); any count of orders without reasons or unentered orders takes one from this family.

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.

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

Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.330 governs disqualification. Due process addresses a structural conflict, here a judge named as a mandamus defendant while presiding.

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

Rule 2.330(i), Determination, Successive Motions, is a real rule, but it does not reach the ground raised: whether a judge who is a named defendant in a pending mandamus (N-058) may keep presiding over the related family case. No judge in any forum has engaged that question on the merits: the disqualification order rested on the successive-motion track, 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.

Date

2026-02-03

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

asked to set an earlier hearing on a 20-month-old motion to compel, the court put the question to opposing counsel three times, was told "No, sir, I do not," and said "But I want his consent"; a court needs no permission to hear a motion.

What the law required

A court has inherent authority to set its own docket. A 20-month-old discovery motion needs no consent from the opposing party to be heard.

What happened

The question whether Davis would agree to an earlier, separate hearing on Husband's motion to compel came up three times in the same 2/3/26 hearing. Each time Davis declined, on the record: "No, sir, I do not, respectfully". When Husband pointed out the court could simply order the hearing, Judge Felix answered: "But I want his consent". He explained that he preferred to coordinate between the parties, and Davis had not agreed. Judge Felix then set everything, the discovery motion included, for the general 4/17 date, promising to take it first. It was argued first that day, and he never ruled on it (N-090). [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

A court has inherent authority to set its own docket and needs no party's consent to hear a pending motion. On 2/3/26 Judge Felix asked Davis whether he would agree to a separate, earlier hearing on Husband's two-year-old discovery motion; Davis declined each time, twice stating, "No, sir, I do not." The motion was folded into the general 4/17 calendar instead, so Davis's refusal, not the court's own docket authority, decided when it would be heard.

Receipt

• Doc 279, the certified transcript of the 2/3/26 hearing.
• Tr. 14:1-19 (first ask and both refusals, 14:14 and 14:17): "Mr. Davis, would you agree to setting that matter individually before?" / "No, sir, I do not, respectfully," and again "No, sir, I do not".
• Tr. 18:21-23 (court's recap: "I've heard the request before. I asked Mr. Davis if he would agree to that and he said no").
• Tr. 21:1-20 ("But I want his consent" at 21:8; coordination sentence at 21:12-14: "I prefer to coordinate between the parties and the counsels with regards to hearings and Mr. Davis has not agreed to that.").
• Tr. 21:16-20 and 23:4-6 (everything set for the 17th, "We'll do that first"). Tr. 9 (surrounding discovery/guardian ad litem argument).
• Transcript runs Tr. 1-24; hearing concluded 12:24 p.m.

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

A stay is lifted the way it is imposed, by order. A party's motion asking the court to identify or enter the lifting order must be determined.

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.
• Tally note: 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

two writs, an appellate motion, and four trial-court motions have asked a court to watch the 4/4/25 courthouse video; asked on 4/17/26 whether he had reviewed it, Judge Felix answered "I have not."

What the law required

Due process requires a ruling on the motions to supplement and review the 4/4/25 video and to preserve the stay.

What happened

Husband asked the trial court four times to look at the 4/4/25 video: Doc 267 (2/9/26), Doc 280 (3/17/26), and Docs 283 and 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). No responsive order on any of the four appears anywhere in the records tree. 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, and denied rehearing 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. The absence of responsive orders still needs confirmation against a live docket pull.

Receipt

• Docs 267, 280, 283, 284, and the handling order at 285.
• 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. No text-layer extraction used for the quoted material.
• Speaker of "I have not." is the court, Judge Felix, presiding that day.
• Unresolved-motions list in the matter file plus the docket pull; absence of responsive orders is a records-tree conclusion, no live docket pull has been run.

Spawned by: N-042, N-058

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-04-17

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

after 23 months the motion was finally heard and granted from the bench, and the grant moved nothing: the objections that block production were expressly preserved, production was not compelled, and no written order was ever entered.

What the law required

Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.285 and 12.350 require the court to compel and enforce production on a 23-month-old motion.

What happened

On 4/17/26, after 23 months, Judge Felix orally ordered three years of Rule 12.285 disclosure. He expressly preserved Wife's prenuptial and postnuptial objections. He did not compel production. He entered no written order. Later the same day, asked about the same motion, he said: "We already handled that matter." No written ruling exists in the record, and no production followed. When Husband moved in July 2026 simply to have that bench ruling reduced to writing, that motion drew no order either (N-133). [WON-THEN-NULLIFIED]

Baseline deviation

A court that grants a motion to compel compels something. Rules 12.285 and 12.350 exist so a party owed financial disclosure gets it. Here the grant was shaped so nothing had to move: disclosure was ordered, the objections that stop it were preserved, production was not compelled, and nothing was written down. A court speaks through written orders, so an oral grant never entered cannot be enforced or appealed. The motion is the first-filed motion in the case (N-003).

Receipt

• 4/17/26 Tr. 73, 114-116, 120-121, and 344 (the "We already handled that matter." line at Tr. 344)
• Unwritten-ruling family, cited as a family whenever any one is used: N-060 and N-074 (the stay lift), NEW-P5 (the quash order never submitted), N-133 (the entry motion ignored)
• Related decision points: N-073.

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

Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330 requires a ruling on the merits of the structural conflict, and findings of fact.

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, per the 8/18/26 eye sweep; 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

The 8/1/25 Stay Pending Appeal was entered and left standing. On 9/8/25 the 2D DCA said relief from the stay was to be sought in the trial court. "No order ever lifted the August 1, 2025 stay" (as pleaded at paragraphs 58 and 58A).

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). [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

A stay means the case stops. The August 1, 2025 stay was never lifted by any order, and Wife's counsel conceded on the record that "it slipped through the cracks, and I didn't submit it." He attributed the initial delay to Husband's objections, which went to a draft's wording; the stay stood regardless. 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

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

The card's duty statement needs its authority and currently has none beyond the general rule. In-tree support: Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.215(f) (every judge shall rule upon and announce an order on every matter submitted within a reasonable time, as quoted in the tree's rule research).

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

A judge rules on every matter submitted within a reasonable time. 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. Limit: the only in-tree authority is Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.215(f), its text not pulled, and no authority requiring written findings for the underlying relief is cited in the tree.

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

F.S. 90.202 permits judicial notice of related court proceedings.

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 90.202 permits a court to take judicial notice of related court proceedings. 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 there is nothing on the record that 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

R. 12.380(a)(4) and R. 12.280 require the court to rule on a motion to compel and on sequencing.

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, 532 days of silence as of 8/7/26 (N-037). The motion remains unruled. [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

Rules 12.380(a)(4) and 12.280 require a ruling on a motion to compel and on sequencing. An order compelling what this motion sought would have documented Davis's billing, the source of his funds, and Bar communications (N-031). None was entered. The sequencing motion asking that discovery come first sat unruled while the guardian ad litem track ran to completion. In candor, the statement that the $6,000 was "not denied" rests on the motion's characterization of Wife's reply, not an independent source.

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

A court must hear noticed motions, permit cross-examination (F.S. 90.608), find facts, and rule on a renewed disqualification motion under R. 2.330.

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 barred cross-examination on the Bar complaint entirely, 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. Eighteen pages of transcript later he removed the remaining motions from the hearing, giving this reason on the record: "That's my lunch break." [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

A court hears the motions that are noticed, permits cross-examination, finds facts, and rules on a renewed disqualification motion. The refusal to find facts is not a one-off on this docket. It is on two certified transcripts, 4/17/26 at Tr. 181 and 5/29/26 at Tr. 53, which makes it a practice. A ruling on the renewed disqualification motion would have put the judge's status in the mandamus case (N-058) on the record. He declined the motion and found no facts.

Receipt

• 5/29/26 review memo and extracts, 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?", always 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
• Standing citation rule: Tr. 231:19-23 (the noticing) and Tr. 249:19-250:2 (the stripping) are cited as two connected passages, never as one quote, because 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

Relief from a subpoena requires stated grounds. Impartiality is required where the judge's own litigation counsel argues the motion.

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

Relief from a subpoena rests on stated grounds, and impartiality is required where the judge's own litigation counsel argues the motion. Section 119.11(1), Fla. Stat. requires an immediate hearing with priority over other pending cases; that case has been pending for months (N-058). In candor, the quash motions were filed one to two days before the hearing, 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

Hearing time must be allocated even-handedly, and sequencing must not moot a prerequisite matter.

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 79 days as of 8/17/26. [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

• F223 (Master Fact Ledger, sourced to the 5/30 and 6/2/26 emails as sent)
• 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 machine-computed
• Standing caution: do not assert "offered all day June 1"

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

Relieving a subpoenaed witness rests on stated grounds and findings.

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

Relieving a subpoenaed witness rests on stated grounds and findings. Findings here would have put the ruling's grounds on the record. There are none. 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.

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 has produced no written order at all (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

Relieving a subpoenaed witness rests on stated grounds and findings.

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

Relieving a subpoenaed witness rests on stated grounds and findings. This is the order that closed the records-custodian route, seeded at N-037. It is the written form of the 5/29/26 bench quash (N-109), where the motion excusing this same custodian was argued by the Senior Assistant Attorney General whose office defends the signing judge in the mandamus. Findings would have put that ruling's grounds on the record. There are none in either copy.

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.

Date

2026-06-10

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

13th Cir.

Mechanism

the motion pled a status ground the rule treats separately, that the judge was himself a named defendant in a pending case; the order denying it 9 hours and 27 minutes after filing called the motion "legally insufficient" and never mentions that ground

What the law required

R. 2.330 limits review to legal sufficiency. Caperton, Murchison, and Williams supply the due process standard. The motion pled (e)(2)(C) status grounds distinct from the prior (e)(1) motion.

What happened

Doc 329 was filed at 12:00 AM on 6/10/26. At 8:34 AM Davis filed a fee request limited to the fees of responding to the motion (Doc 330). At 9:27 AM, 9 hours and 27 minutes after the filing, Judge Felix denied the motion to disqualify himself (Doc 331). He cited rule 2.330(i), called the motion "legally insufficient," and stated that he is able to be fair and impartial. He never addressed the separately pled (e)(2)(C) status ground or the due-process argument. [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

Under Rule 2.330(h), the judge named in an initial motion determines only its legal sufficiency and does not pass on the truth of the facts alleged; a same-day disposition is fast but not improper in itself. The defect is narrower and on the order's face: the motion pled a status ground under subdivision (e)(2)(C), distinct from the earlier (e)(1) motion, and the order is silent on it. The due process standard comes from Caperton, Murchison and Williams.

Receipt

• Doc 329 (filed 12:00 AM 6/10/26).
• Doc 330 (8:34 AM).
• Doc 331 (9:27 AM), with the DIN confirmed by a docket pull.

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

Nothing prescribes signing velocity. Velocity is a choice, and choices are the dataset (same frame as N-128).

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

Nothing in any rule prescribes how fast an order gets signed. 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 813-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 in the tree at OFF_DOCKET, Filing 250544732 per the e-service receipt, 9:42 AM.
• The 9:42 AM leg has no page image and Filing 250544732 has not been pulled, so the 4h05m figure rests on the e-service receipt alone.
• Tally note: the pendency comparator is owned at N-003 and counted once.

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

F.S. 61.401 sets the guardian ad litem standards and requires findings. Brandauer (2d DCA) calls for discovery-first sequencing. The order must be accurate.

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 conditions an appointment on the child's best interest and requires findings, and Brandauer calls for discovery first. The order states three things: Wife's concerns, Husband's own non-adverse statement that he is a good parent, and the court's belief that a guardian would aid its decision-making. The wrong hearing date is most likely stale-notice copying, not fabrication. The motion's age was on the record at 532 and 544 days, and 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 602 days as of 8/7/26.
• Tally note: this row owns the grant event; the appointment-terms instance at N-024, the pricing at N-134, the amendment at N-147, and the enforcement at N-148 and N-151 are downstream decision points and not additional grants, so any "orders without findings" tally counts Doc 337 once.

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. No rule prescribes how fast an order gets signed. Signing speed is a choice, and the choices are the dataset.

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 leave of court on motion with client consent or stipulation. No rule prescribes signing speed; same judge, same case, same mechanism: counsel's exit order was signed in under 20 hours. Husband's proposed order memorializing the court's own 12/19/24 oral ruling has never been signed, standing 827 days as of August 21, 2026 (N-003). His 7/23/26 written request to the same chambers 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

A motion to quash is ruled on with stated grounds. The Bar subpoenas are the discovery route into the Bar-handling record.

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; none has been entered (NEW-P5). [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

A motion to quash is ruled on with stated grounds: oppression, harassment, relevance, burden. Bar counsel argued three by name; the ruling contains a finding on none of them, and does not differentiate among the four subpoenas. 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), filed OFF_DOCKET, not docketed; hearing 4:00 to 4:32 PM, 32 minutes. Every cite read off a rendered page image on 8/10/26 at 230 dpi per quadrant, every speaker tag read from the image rather than the text layer.
• 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, machine-verified, and the written order was still absent 77 days from filing and 31 days from the ruling as of 8/7/26, current as of the records tree as swept on 8/7/26 and not checked against a live docket.
• Note against the standing caution at N-055: "reviewed on three levels" is Husband's phrase in open court and is not the letter's phrase.

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

Due process requires the court to hear and determine a motion asking that an announced bench ruling be reduced to writing. A court speaks through 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 speaks through written orders. By July 2026 the court's ruling on Husband's Doc 22 motion existed only as spoken words: granted from the bench on April 17 after 23 months of waiting, never entered, never enforced (N-090). So Husband filed a motion asking for two ordinary things. Enter the written order, and set his still-unheard motions for hearing. His filed motion produced one sentence about email etiquette, seven offered August slots, and no order. Through that same email channel the same court signed Wife's proposed order in about 25 hours (N-134) and set her an eight-hour hearing 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

The court must rule on a fully briefed motion for reconsideration (Doc 342) before implementing the order under review. A complete order must be served. Due process comes before the imposition of monetary obligations.

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 61.401 conditions the appointment on the child's best interest, and an order that bills a parent $3,000 is the kind that rests on findings. This one has none. Husband's repeated discovery requests to contest the appointment were never permitted. A ruling on the pending reconsideration motion (N-125) would have answered those challenges; it was implemented instead. Against that, the velocity: one day from a party email to a signed order, while seven older motions stood undecided (N-140).

Receipt

• Doc 351, e-signed 7/23/26 11:37:14 AM; verified-quotes and incoherence memos on file. 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).
• F230, F231, and the 59C table ("1 day"). 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 and counted once.

Spawned by: N-125

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-07-23

Actor

Judge Felix (unruled pre-maturity stay request); Wife (private enforcement)

Institution

13th Cir. Fam. Div. A

Mechanism

the three-day clock to pay a guardian ad litem $3,000 ran out before the guardian had ever contacted Husband, and the motion he filed that same morning to stay or extend it drew no ruling of any kind before the deadline passed

What the law required

An obligation imposed by court order carries process. A verified stay or extension request filed before the deadline matured should be determined. An appointee's funding obligation ordinarily follows some appointee function.

What happened

The retainer deadline matured Tuesday 7/28/26. At 7:45:45 AM that morning, before maturity, Husband filed a verified emergency motion for reconsideration, stay, or extension. No ruling of any kind issued through the end of the deadline window. The court's three most recent emergency responses had been checkbox denials marking the request not an emergency. 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 payment obligation ran to term before the person to be paid had ever contacted the payor. [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

An obligation imposed by court order carries process, and a verified stay or extension request filed before the deadline matures gets determined. What is receipted is internal to the order's mechanics: a payment clock that matured on 7/28 against an appointee whose first substantive contact came the day after. The court signed the appointment in about 25 hours (N-134) and issued nothing on the pre-maturity stay request. A determination would have produced a record before the term matured; none issued.

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).
• Deadline computation under Rule 2.514(a)(2).
• F235, F236 and F239.
• The court's three most recent emergency responses were "not an emergency" checkbox forms: Docs 285, 298 and 299.
• The docket number assignment has not been pulled from the docket.

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

Even-handed docket administration. A court that declares a scheduling channel closed may 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 hearing had been discussed at the 7/7 case management conference. 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. F236 and F240.
• 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. Recorded here rather than argued.
• The 1-day figure is machine-recomputed. 7/28/26 8:14 AM to 7/29/26 12:52 PM is 28 hours 38 minutes, so the interval is stated as the next day and never as within 24 hours.
• 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 is not in the tree, and which motions it sets was unknown at capture, so this card asserts nothing about its scope.
• 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 section 119.11's word "immediate" at N-058. The answer is checkable either way: a monthly report either lists these six matters or it does not. The same six went to the chief judge's office the same day (N-141).

Receipt

• Filing #253488214. Portal capture; the filed packet; the recomputation ledger, machine-verified with zero mismatches, study completed 8/1/26; F237 and F238.
• 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

The Question Protocol makes any answer evidence. They set the August dates, they refuse with a stated basis, or silence ratifies with the supervisory layer on notice.

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 left three possible answers: set the August dates, refuse with a stated basis, or let the silence stand 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, "7-29-26 my email 140pm. (as sent).pdf"; F241.
• 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

Court administration may assign case managers. 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).

The chronology is stated. Nothing beyond it is claimed. [PENDING]

Baseline deviation

Court administration may assign case managers, and nothing here is asserted about that authority. The record question is the timing. The stated ground is accurate on its face, because both parties are in fact unrepresented, this routing may be routine for dockets postured that way, and the new channel may prove useful. None of that is established or contested here. The timing is the fact. Nothing beyond the chronology is claimed, and no purpose is attributed to anyone for the sequence recorded below.

Receipt

• 7-30-26 court email PDF p. 1, rendered page read at intake 8/1/26. F242.
• 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.

Date

2026-08-04

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix

Institution

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

Mechanism

four pages of obligations Husband had never been served, among them a ban on posting about his own case, first reached him on August 4, 2026, entered on a non-party's letter with no motion, no notice, and no hearing

What the law required

An order that restricts a party's speech, waives the rules of evidence as to that party, grants a third party access to that party's confidential records, and releases all future claims against that third party is entered on notice and an opportunity to be heard, and rests on findings. Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.540(a) permits correction of clerical mistakes on the court's own initiative. It does not supply authority to add substantive obligations. No rule requires a court to announce what an "Amended" order amended. The silence is the choice this row records. The choice to correct silently is a choice, and choices are the dataset. RULE TEXT PULLED 8/17/26 (three concordant secondary sources; pull the official flcourts version before any filing cites it): Rule 12.540(a): 'Clerical mistakes in judgments or other parts of the record and errors arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time on its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders.' HONEST APPLICATION, and it cuts both ways: the rule expressly permits sua sponte correction with whatever notice the court chooses, and even pages dropped at e-filing are a textbook 'error arising from oversight or omission,' so the AMENDMENT ITSELF is likely proper and the card must never argue otherwise. What the rule does not do is answer the live question this card actually scores: whether eleven paragraphs of obligation that first existed in served form on 8/4/26 can bind a party for the period before they were served, and whether an enforcement motion may run on obligations from the never-served pages. That is a notice and due process question (Art. I, sec. 9), not a 12.540 question. Argue the enforceability window, never the correction's validity.

What happened

The 7/23/26 order appointing a guardian ad litem (Doc 351) was entered as a five-page document, only the odd pages of a nine-page order. On 8/3/26 the guardian ad litem wrote Judge Felix that "several of the pages of the Order are missing" and asked for a complete copy. The next day Judge Felix entered a nine-page Amended Order; no paragraph was deleted or reworded, only the restored pages and signature block changed.

Obligations never before served came into existence against Husband on 8/4/26: a waiver of the section 61.403(1) notice requirement, blanket self-executing authority over confidential records, a waiver of the hearsay rules, a duty to fund the guardian's counsel in advance, a prospective waiver of all claims, and: "Any postings to social media about the case shall be immediately removed". No motion, notice, or hearing preceded any of it. The fifteen-day rehearing window closed 8/19/2026. [PENDING]

Baseline deviation

A restraint on speech about one's own case normally requires notice, a hearing, and findings tailored to the harm. This order has one finding total: that a guardian ad litem is in the children's best interest, saying nothing about speech. A duplex-scanning accident is the likely explanation for the missing pages, and Rule 12.540(a) permits a court to correct such an error. The live question: whether paragraphs first served on 8/4/26 can bind a party for the period before service.

Receipt

• The guardian ad litem's letter to Judge Felix, "Correspondence to Judge Felix 26.08.03.pdf," 1 p., dated August 3, 2026, Via E-Portal, signed over the title GUARDIAN AD LITEM, copying both parties; saved to 1150 OFF_DOCKET.
• Full quote: the order "appears to have at some point been printed double-sided, but only one side of each page was captured when it was signed and uploaded into Hover."
• Amended Order, 8/4/26, all 9 pp., at 1150 OFF_DOCKET; text layers unusable, no OCR used, so the delta was built from page images.
• Doc 351 as entered, all 5 pp., in 00_DOCKET; the Clerk's e-filing footer numbers those five pages 1 through 5 consecutively, so nothing was lost in transmission; four of five page transitions break mid-sentence.
• Doc 337 (2 pp.).
• DIN 365 confirmed from a docket screenshot; Clock-In Event Date 08/04/2026, creation 08/05.
• Rule text pulled 8/17/26 from three concordant secondary sources rather than from the official flcourts publication.
• No certified Clerk copy of Doc 351 is held, so the five-page defect is shown here from a downloaded PDF rather than from the record.
• Process comparison: the appointment itself consumed roughly 15 hours of hearing time across three dates before a two-page order issued; the paragraphs added on 8/4 consumed no hearing time at all. A non-party appointee's letter drew action from the court in one day, while Husband's own first-filed discovery motion stood at 827 days as of August 21, 2026 with no ruling (N-003).
• The guardian ad litem asked only that a complete copy be entered; she did not ask for an amended order, and what the amendment added is the court's act, not hers.
• Tally note: N-125 owns the grant event; this is a downstream decision point.

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. Civil contempt in a family case proceeds by an order to show cause that states the essential facts, is served, advises of the right to counsel, and sets a hearing, under Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.615. The burden is the movant's: she must prove a prior order, notice of it, and non-compliance, and a coercive sanction for non-payment requires a present-ability-to-pay finding. The lawful options available on 8/7/2026 were to issue an order to show cause and set the return, to deny the motion, or to set it behind the matters already noticed. The court set the motion itself.

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/ Sarah Sorgie Hanson, 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, stood at 823 days as of 8/17/2026.

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 of the Florida Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law. Civil contempt in a family case proceeds by an order to show cause stating the essential facts, served, advising of the right to counsel, and setting a hearing. The burden is the movant's: a prior order, notice of it, and non-compliance, and a coercive sanction for non-payment requires a finding of present ability to pay. The options available on 8/7/2026 were to issue an order to show cause and set the return, to deny the motion, or to set it behind the matters already noticed. The court set the motion itself. Setting a motion for hearing is an ordinary act. The departure recorded is the absence of the show-cause step, on a motion the court could see on its face was unsworn and cited nothing.

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 and must never be promoted into quotation marks. 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. Cite for distribution only, never as purpose.

Spawned by: N-148, N-147

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.