Recusal is up to the presiding judge. Failure to recuse is subject to appeal. He was never disqualified, so it's safe to assume that the appeals court found no reason to do so if the Schindlers did indeed appeal Greer's decision. The law was followed, so by definition there was no wrongdoing in this area.
I'm sorry, but that is not correct. Recusal is mandatory within the language written by the legislators. The word "shall" leaves no option, permits no deviancy. It is an imperative. The language is clear:
Whenever a party to any action or proceeding makes and files an afidavit . . . the judge SHALL proceed no ruther. . . but another judge SHALL be designated in the manner prescribed by the laws of this state for the substitution of judges for the trial of causes in which the presiding judge is disqualified."Once a litigant 'makes and files' the affidavit, the judge has no further jurisdiction to proceed." This proposition that the filing of the affidavit alone removes the judge from jurisdiction over the matter is supported by a long line of Florida cases." In Re: Amendment to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.160, Florida Supreme Court Case No. SC03-2169; also see Swepson v. Call, 13 Fla. 337 (1869); Suerez v. State, 115 S. 519, 524 (Fla. 1928); Dickenson v. Parks, 140 S. 459, 462 (Fla. 1932); Escalona v. Wisotsky, 781 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 2000); Breakstone v. MacKenzie, 561 So.2d 1164 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1989); Stimpson Computing Scale Co. v. Knuck, 508 So.2d at 484; Wishoff v. Polen In and For Broward County, 468 So.2d 1035 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. 1985); Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Publix Super Markets 814 So.2d 1249 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 2002); Rogers v. State, 630 So.2d 513 (Fla. 1993); Dura-Stress, Inc. v. Law, 634 So.2d 769 (Fla.App. 5 Dist. 1994); CH2M Hill Southeast, Inc. v. Pinellas County, 598 So.2d 85 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 1992); Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.432; The trial judge may not debate the allegations contained in the motion, pass on the truth of its allegations or adjudicate the question of disqualification. See Townsend v. State, 564 So.2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
Perhaps the whole court system down there is in need of fumigating. (Guess they're fed up with all the "geezers" retiring down there and annoying them in traffic. I'm a "geezer", so I'm insulting myself. Talk about a "final solution" to a lot of problems.)