orders to transfer the cause to another judge not named in the motion for a hearing on the motion. Brim is the only case we find that comes close to holding that once a motion for substitution of judges for cause is properly brought, the trial judge loses all power and authority over the cause except to make the necessary orders to transfer the cause to another judge not named in the motion for a hearing on the motion. (Brim, 241 Ill. App. 3d at 249.) The court in Brim held: ”[T]he trial judge against whom the motion [for substitution of judge for cause] is filed should not assess the truthfulness of the allegations. [Citation.] Section 114 — 5(d) of the Code expressly provides a judge other than the one ágainst whom the allegation is made should rule on the motion. [Cita , 975 (<HOLDING>); People v. Crete (1985), 133 Ill. App. 3d 24,
holding motion for substitution of judge properly denied where movant failed to attach affidavit holding that a district court judge to whom a case had been reassigned could grant the defendants motion for summary judgment after the previous judge had denied the motion holding that where appellant moved to recuse trial judge from deciding the motion for new trial the judge of the administrative district was required to designate a judge to hear the recusal motion holding that it was not error for successor trial judge to direct a judgment for defendant based on the statute of limitations where initial judge had denied a motion for summary judgment on the same issue holding that trial judge did not err in refusing to transfer to another judge defendants motion for substitution of judge for cause where defendants motion lacked specificity