Chief Judge Jonathan Sjostrom announced today that  Circuit Court Judge Karen Gievers will replace Judge Charles Dodson in the case addressing the residency of City Commissioner Scott Maddox.

Judge Gievers was first elected on November 2, 2010. Gievers was up for re-election in 2016. However, no other candidates filed to run and Gievers was automatically re-elected to a six-year term ending in January 2023.

Judge Gievers began her career in 1976 as a law clerk in Miami. She then worked as an associate, and then partner, of the law firm of Anderson Moss from 1979 to 1987. In 1987, she started her own practice, Gievers, P.A., where she worked as the senior attorney until her judicial election. She moved the firm from Miami to Tallahassee in 1999. In 2010, she was elected to the circuit court.

ORIGINAL POST

Today at approximately 11:30 a.m., Judge Charles Dodson notified the parties involved with the Jackson-Maddox residency case that he has decided to recuse himself.

In a three page “Order of Recusal”, Judge Charles Dodson wrote “I hereby recuse myself and request the Chief Judge of the circuit to appoint anew judge on the case.”

Judge Dodson had previously denied a motion for disqualification filed by Dr. Erwin Jackson. However, that changed after the First DCA ruled the motion was legally sufficient.

You can read the “Order of Recusal” here.

Check back for updates.

This how the First DCA order on this appeal impacts the case moving forward.

First, the DCA denied an effort by Dr. Jackson to default City Commissioner Scott Maddox for his failure to file a proper response to the original claim by Dr.Jackson. The First DCA argued that Jackson failed to show material harm that could not be corrected on appeal.

Second, the First DCA, in a 2-1 vote, denied Dr. Jackson’s motion to disqualify Judge Dodson. The court argued that Dr. Jackson’s appeal was not timely filed. The DCA order stated:

While we find that Jackson’s November 15 motion for disqualification of the trial judge was legally sufficient, and was timely as to the conduct of the November 10 hearing, Jackson thereafter failed to take appropriate and timely steps to seek our review of the order denying disqualification and to prevent the trial judge from taking further action pending such appellate review.

And finally, the First DCA ruled that Maddox shall not take the oath of office pending a final judgment in the case. In addition, the court instructed Judge Dodson on how to move forward in the case. The DCA order stated:

for the sake of judicial economy we suggest that the parties make an evidentiary record of Maddox’s residency on all potentially applicable dates so that the issue can be resolved with finality in a single plenary appeal. We direct the trial court to determine the controlling legal definition of “residency,” refine the outstanding requests for discovery and set a discovery schedule, and, barring any extraordinary circumstances, to enter a final judgment by December 6, 2016.

This means the First DCA  has ordered a hearing on Maddox’s residency on all the dates that have been raised (August 30th, September 6th, November 21st) and Dr. Jackson will get  discovery relating to those issues.

Also, the order indicates the First DCA will be the final arbitrator of the issues at hand with an anticipated resolution by the next City Commission meeting, which is December 14th, 2016.

However, in a rare Sunday order, the First DCA wrote that “Mr. Maddox shall not take the oath of office pending further order from this Court.”

The First DCA was responding to a third appeal by Dr. Jackson, which was filed earlier Sunday.

In their order, the First DCA seeks information on a number of issues included in the latest appeal filed by Dr. Jackson. These issues include the date when residency within the City of Tallahassee is required for candidates and the disqualification of Judge Dodson.

Controlling Date for Residency

The City of Tallahassee and Mr. Maddox argue that controlling date for residency is the day of installation of the winning candidate, which in this case would be November 21.

Dr. Jackson argues that the City of Tallahassee Charter requires candidate residency when the election results are certified, which in this case would be August 3oth.

Judge Dodson ruled in favor of Mr. Maddox and the City of Tallahassee on this issue.

An important question on the controlling date of residency is why does this date matter if Mr. Maddox has been a resident since he was first elected in 2012? Also, why is this date so important to the City of Tallahassee?

Disqualification of Judge Dodson

Dr. Jackson, after the First DCA overruled Judge Dodson the second time, filed a motion to disqualify Judge Dodson. The disqualification motion, in part , was based on the First DCA’s finding that Dodson failed to protect Jackson’s due process rights.

Judge Dodson denied the motion in writing without comment and again failed to address the disqualification motion in the hearing held on Friday.

Dr. Jackson argued that case law supports a disqualification when a judge fails to protect due process rights.

Today the First DCA overruled Judge Dodson’s most recent decision, which held that Scott Maddox resided within the boundaries of the City of Tallahassee.

This is the second time the First DCA has reversed a decision made by Judge Dodson in this case.

In the most recent First DCA reversal, which was based on an appeal by Dr Erwin Jackson, the court stated “we vacate the trial court’s final order in its entirety and remand for further proceedings in accordance with section 102.168, the Rules of Civil Procedure, and due process.”

The First DCA said that Judge Dodson’s court “abused its discretion by proceeding to hear the merits of Appellant’s election contest without proper notice to the parties that the hearing would proceed as a final evidentiary hearing, without resolving Appellant’s pending discovery requests, and without ruling on a number of unresolved motions.”

The First DCA added that Dodson’s court “erroneously concluded that discovery was not available.”

The First DCA order means that Dr. Jackson will be afforded a full hearing with discovery rights. However, the first issue to be addressed in court will be a request by Dr. Jackson to disqualify Judge Dodson from the case.

Dr. Jackson filed a motion for Dodson’s disqualification based on several factors which include open hostility shown by the trial judge to the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s counsel.

Dr. Erwin Jackson, who filed the original action questioning the residency of City Commissioner Scott Maddox, was dumbfounded by the lack of due process in Dodson’s court room, and on Monday, filed objections with the District Court of Appeal.

The First District Court of Appeal responded late Monday with a two page order that requires Maddox to respond by Tuesday.

The two page order stated that “On or before 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 15, 2016, Appellees (Maddox) shall file their answer briefs, which shall address all points raised in the initial brief” filed by Dr. Jackson.

The First DCA expressed particular interest in Dr. Jackson’s claims about due process.

The First DCA directed Maddox to answer  “whether the November 10, 2016, hearing afforded Appellant procedural due process, including, but not limited to, whether Appellant received timely and sufficient notice that the trial court would hold a final evidentiary hearing, whether Appellant was afforded adequate time for preparation, and whether the trial court properly ruled that discovery was not available.”

Dr. Jackson and his lawyer claim they were not notified that the initial hearing would be a final evidentiary hearing. In fact, Dr. Jackson, through his lawyer, notified Judge Dodson’s judicial assistant that they wanted to discuss the dates for discovery and procedures for a hearing at the November 10th meeting.

However, upon arrival Judge Dodson informed Dr. Jackson there would be no discovery and a final evidentiary hearing would be held immediately. About forty minutes later, Judge Dodson ruled Maddox lives in the City of Tallahassee.

When asked about the hearing Dodson held last week, local lawyers expressed disbelief about the procedures and predicted the First DCA would weigh-in on the due process claims.

That prediction has come to fruition.

Also, included in Dr. Jackson’s appeal was a request to disqualify Judge Dodson from the case. In response to the request the First DCA said;

We do not pass upon Appellant’s request that we disqualify Judge Dodson from presiding over further proceedings in this matter, pending Appellant’s filing in the trial court a motion to disqualify that complies with section 38.10 of the Florida Statutes and Rule 2.330 of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration.

This language means the First DCA will rule on the disqualification request when Dr. Jackson files a motion that meets the requirements outlined in Florida statutes.

The decision by Judge Dodson, which has no impact on the merits of any arguments in the case, will allow the City of Tallahassee to argue their position. The City’s position is the controversy should be decided by the City of Tallahassee.

In the motion to intervene, the City’s attorney wrote “the City Commission is the exclusive forum for the initial determination as to the qualification of Mr. Maddox to sit as a commissioner.”

Sources told TR that a decision by Judge Dodson to give the City of Tallahassee the ability to address the issue could result in an awkward process where City Commissioners would become hearing officers.

Any decision by the City Commission could be appealed.

Based on public records request and other research, TR has determined that the City’s interpretation of the Charter is that the question of residency is only relevant when the winning candidate takes office. This means that as long as Mr. Maddox takes residency in the City before being sworn in, which will take place in November, there is no residency issue.

However, this position appears to be inconsistent with the oath taken by City Commission candidates which requires a sworn statement indicating the candidate is an elector of the City.

It also appears the City of Tallahassee, through the City Attorney’s office, is sharing information about the case with Mr. Maddox. TR recovered an email that showed the City Attorney’s office kept Mr. Maddox’s aide abreast of communications between the City Attorney’s office and the Tallahassee Democrat.

Both Jackson and Maddox have issued public comments since Judge Dodson’s decision.

Maddox, who filed a motion to have the case dismissed, told the Tallahassee Democrat:

“This is a frivolous lawsuit brought by Erwin Jackson on his third attempt to discredit me. This one will be thrown out like all the others have been. It’s unfortunate that the price of public service is constant harassment of your family by a government critic.”

Jackson told TR:

“Four years ago I asked the city commission to address the fact that Commissioner Scott Maddox was violating the City Charter by not living in the city. They had no interest in addressing the issue. Now that a private citizen seeks an opportunity to prove this violation in court, the city now wants to get involved. The city commission is not interested in enforcing the City Charter, they are simply trying to protect their fellow commissioner.”

The next hearing should take place within the next three weeks.