Court Case Record HOPE E. PETERS vs. KOENRAAD MORTELE & another 2010-J-0472

HOPE E. PETERS vs. KOENRAAD MORTELE & another Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2010-J-0472

Case Number2010-J-0472
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyNorfolk Probate & Family
CourtNorfolk Probate & Family
Court Address
Field Date10/18/2010
Close Date11/16/2010


Laura R. Studen, EsquireHope E. PetersPlaintiff/Petitioner
Rosemary Purtell, Esquire Michael J. Traft, EsquireKoenraad MorteleDefendant/Respondent
Regina M. Hurley, EsquireDax GuentherDefendant/Respondent
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
10/15/2010 #1 PETITION purs to GLc 231, s. 118 w/attach, filed by Hope E. Peters.
10/27/2010 #2 OPPOSITION to Petition w/attach, filed by Koenraad Mortele.
10/27/2010 #3 Notice of appearance of Michael J. Traft for Koenraad Mortele.
10/27/2010 #4 ORDER: Before me is a petition of the plaintiff, seeking review of two orders of a judge of the Probate and Family Court: (I) an order entered September 16, 2010, denying her motion for recusal, and (ii) an order entered September 17, 2010, establishing visitation for the defendant Koenraad Mortele with the couple's daughter. The Probate and Family Court judge denied the petitioner's motion for recusal by means of a rubber stamped endorsement on the motion. I am accordingly without the benefit of any explanation by the judge concerning the meaning of the comments on which the motion for recusal (and the subject petition) are based. Such an explanation would be of assistance in evaluating the petitioner's contention that recusal is required under the second part of the two-part analysis required on a motion for recusal. See, e.g., Haddad v. Gonzalez, 410 Mass. 855, 862 (1991). Accordingly, the Probate and Family Court judge is hereby directed to enter a supplemental written order, on or before November 9, 2010, explaining the effect and meaning of the comments that are the subject of the motion for recusal, and offering her explanation of why they should not cause her impartiality reasonably to be questioned.1 Promptly following preparation and entry of such supplemental order, a copy of the supplemental order shall be transmitted to the Clerk of this Court. Proceedings on the present petition shall be stayed pending receipt of the supplemental order. (Green, J.)*Notice/attest/image/Harms, J.
10/29/2010 #5 Motion for leave to file reply to oppositions by respondents Guenther and Mortelle filed by Hope E. Peters.
10/29/2010 #6 Reply to Opposition to Petition filed by Hope E. Peters.
11/16/2010 #7 ORDER: "Before me is the plaintiff s petition, pursuant to G. L. C. 231, ยง 118, par. 1, seeking relief from an order of a judge of the Probate and Family Court, denying the plaintiff s motion for recusal of that judge. The order entered initially by means of a rubber stamped endorsement on the motion itself; thereafter, pursuant to an order of this Court issued on October 27, 2010, the motion judge prepared and filed with this Court on November 12, 2010, a supplemental order explaining her ruling on the motion. I also have received and reviewed oppositions filed by each of the defendants. Upon review of all such materials, the petition is allowed...The order of September 16, 2010, denying the plaintiffs motion for recusal of Judge Harms, is vacated, and it is ordered that the Hon. Christina J. Harms shall not participate in Dax v. Peters, Norfolk Probate and Family Court No. 05D-0914; Mortele v. Peters, Norfolk Probate and Family Court No. 10W-0461; Peters v. Mortele, Norfolk Probate and Family Court No. 10W-0510; and all other cases involving the same parties and minor children. The First Justice of the Norfolk Probate and Family Court shall reassign the foregoing cases to a different Associate Justice of that Court, who shall conduct such further proceedings in the matters as may be appropriate...So ordered." (Green, J.). *Notice/Attest/Harms, J./Image.
11/16/2010 Corrected copy of paper #7 mailed to counsel and trial court.