Judge must follow proper procedures after motion to recuse
Tennessee case summary on judicial recusal in divorce.
Court must follow proper procedures in request for recusal.
Brittni (Gray) Haggard v. Joe Michael Carroll
The parents in this McNairy County, Tennessee, case were divorced in 2016, and a permanent parenting plan was put into place. The father filed a petition in 2020 to modify child support, and it was granted. In 2022, he filed a petition to be named the primary residential parent. Early in 2023, the father’s attorney informed his mother’s attorney that the judge was working on a few cases. The mother’s lawyer filed a petition for the judge to be recused. The trial court determined that the father overpaid and temporarily reduced his obligation.
Neither a decision was made on the mother’s motion for recusal nor an order to transfer the matter to another judge. The matter was heard by another judge who changed the parenting plan to name the father as the primary residential parent. After a few more post-trial appeals, the mother appealed to Tennessee Court of Appeals. She first argued the court lacked jurisdiction. The appeals court examined the court rules and viewed the issue as whether or not the mechanism for changing the judges was properly implemented. It found that Rule 11 of the Supreme Court Rules was not violated, but it looked at Rule 10B more closely. This rule requires that the judge issue a written order either granting or refusing the request. The appeals court cited several cases to support the idea that these requirements must be strictly adhered to, and that courts can only speak through written orders.
For these reasons, the lower court’s actions were vacated and the Court of Appeals remanded this case for further proceedings.
