The Second District disclosed that Judge Andrea Teves Smith "is recused in case no. 2D2025-0681," though she sat on panels deciding two of Husband's other cases. Asked whether any judge "has been recused at any point" in those two, it answered "no judges are recused" and withheld the date hers took effect.
Art. I, s. 24(a) presumes the court's records open and puts the burden on the custodian. Section 1.7 of the court's own procedures says "Parties may inquire of the clerk to determine whether any judge is recused in their case," and a judge who finds a conflict notifies the clerk, "who will designate a substitute judge." Asked about four matters, the clerk answers for each, says whether any judge has been recused at any point, and gives the date the disclosed recusal took effect. A recusal the clerk records is administration, not deliberation.
- July 20 to 27, 2026: invoking section 1.7, Husband asked about four matters. Clerk Kuenzel, "On behalf of Chief Judge Lucas": "You have asked whether any judge is recused in your cases. Judge Andrea Teves Smith is recused in case no. 2D2025-0681." That is the whole recusal answer: no date, nothing on the other cases. N-138
- Feb. 10 and Apr. 15, 2026: Judge Smith, the only Smith on the court's letterhead, sat on both panels: "VILLANTI, SLEET, and SMITH, JJ., Concur." (prohibition, 2D2026-0279) and "KHOUZAM, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and SMITH, JJ., Concur." (2D2025-1936). N-078, N-138Read them: Order, Feb. 10, 2026 (link pending redacted copy) · Decision, Apr. 15, 2026 (link pending redacted copy)
- Aug. 20 to Oct. 3, 2026: asked whether any judge "is recused, or has been recused at any point": "no judges are recused in these cases." On the date and her participation: "Any responsive records are confidential and exempt pursuant to rule 2.420(c)(1)." Oct. 2: under section 1.7, Husband asked when the recusal took effect, its ground, and whether it was considered in the other two cases. Unanswered as of Oct. 3, 2026. N-138, N-078Has any judge been recused at any point in 2D2025-1936 or 2D2026-0279, and on what date did Judge Smith's recusal in 2D2025-0681 take effect?Read them: Husband's email to the clerk, Oct. 2, 2026 (link pending redacted copy)
Clerk Mary Elizabeth Kuenzel, writing for Chief Judge Lucas (both answers). One inquiry under the court's own procedure, one disclosed recusal, one withheld date. Every duty here arises from Article I, section 24 and section 1.7 of the court's procedures on this inquiry alone; no other card is needed to establish it.
Art. I, s. 24(a), Fla. Const. presumes judicial-branch records open and puts the burden of any exemption on the custodian; Rule 2.420(m)(2) requires the written basis for each denial. Art. I, s. 9 and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee an impartial tribunal, and the date a recusal took effect is how a party tests that guarantee.
The details are where it lives: full record, receipts, related cards
On July 20, 2026 Husband asked the Second District's clerk, under the court's own Internal Operating Procedures, whether any judge is recused in his cases, naming four matters. On July 27, 2026 Clerk Kuenzel answered, "On behalf of Chief Judge Lucas": "You have asked whether any judge is recused in your cases. Judge Andrea Teves Smith is recused in case no. 2D2025-0681." That is the whole answer. No effective date. No statement whether that judge participated in anything in that case before the recusal took effect. Nothing at all about 2D2025-1936 or 2D2026-0279. On July 30 Husband asked for the date the recusal took effect, whether the judge participated in any order before it, and whether any judge is or has been recused in 2D2025-1936, 2D2026-0279 or 2D2026-1955. On August 20, 2026 the Clerk answered the question about the other cases in the present tense only, 'no judges are recused in these cases,' leaving 'or has been recused at any point' unanswered, and answered the date and participation questions with an exemption: 'Any responsive records are confidential and exempt pursuant to rule 2.420(c)(1).' The Court's own letterhead on the July 14, 2026 letter lists exactly one judge named Smith, ANDREA TEVES SMITH, and N-078 records the February 10, 2026 prohibition denial in 2D2026-0279 as issued by a panel of Villanti, Sleet, and Smith. If that is the same judge, then a judge recused in one of this requester's cases sat on the panel that denied prohibition in another. The date that would test it is the date the Court now withholds as exempt. [PARTIAL]
Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution presumes judicial-branch records open and puts the burden of justifying any withholding on the custodian. The Court's own Internal Operating Procedures, section 1.7, invite exactly this question: a party may ask the clerk whether any judge is recused in the party's case. A judge who is disqualified in a case steps aside from it,. The lawful path was one sentence long: answer as to each case the inquiry named, and state the effective date of any recusal disclosed.
asked under the court's own procedures whether any judge is recused in four named cases, the court disclosed one recusal in one case and gave no date it took effect; asked a second time, it said no judge is now recused in the other cases, left unanswered whether one had been, and said any record of the date is exempt
The clerk's 7/27/26 email, read from the native Gmail message (id 19fa51c4eab02f25, 3:45 PM ET) on 9/26/2026 and matching both tree captures verbatim. The clerk's 8/20/26 reply (Gmail id 1a01fbd3a01d2ddd, filed under Public_Records\by_agency\2D-DCA) answering the 7/30/26 follow-up. The judge roster naming ANDREA TEVES SMITH appears on the page image of the 7/14/26 Lucas letterhead, p. 1. The N-078 panel composition is confirmed on the face of the order, checked against the page image from the rendered page on 9/26/2026: Husband supplied the 2/10/26 prohibition-denial order in 2D2026-0279 on 8/20/26 and it was filed at that case's docket 008, and it names the panel, "VILLANTI, SLEET, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.", over the certification of Mary Elizabeth Kuenzel, Clerk. The four-case inquiry of 7/20/26 under IOP section 1.7. The same 7/27/26 email is the response quoted at N-114 and N-066. Question Protocol, asked 7/30/26 and answered 8/20/26 (date: exempt under 2.420(c)(1); other cases: no judge recused): the effective date of the 2D2025-0681 recusal, her participation before it, and recusals in the two related cases. A date and a yes or no closes the question. A refusal, after the Court volunteered the fact of one recusal, marks the recusal record itself as withheld. An answer that no record of the effective date exists establishes that the Court does not document when its judges step aside.