Judges who lost elections must still provide complete findings in pending cases
Tennessee case summary on divorce process.
Judge who lost re-election bid must still provide complete findings in pending case.
Stephen Charles Johnson v. Elizabeth Kay Johnson
The husband and wife in this Knox County, Tennessee, case were married in 1991 and had two children, both of whom were over the age of majority before their divorce hearing. The husband filed for divorce in 2018 and the case was heard by Chancellor Clarence E. Pridemore Jr. in 2021 and 2022. He did not rule from the bench but asked that both parties submit proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. Shortly before his authority expired, he issued a one-page order adopting the wife’s 59 pages of proposed findings and conclusions.
The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which dismissed the appeal because of some outstanding issues. The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which vacated the judgement on the grounds that Pridemore did not demonstrate his independent judgment. The appeals court cited the 2014 Tennessee Supreme Court decision that said that party-prepared orders may be appropriate, but only when they accurately reflect the decisions of the trial court.
Under this case, party prepared orders might be acceptable, but only if the reflect the actual decision of the court.
This could be demonstrated, for example, if a judge alters a part-prepared order to reflect their own judgment. This did not occur in this case. But the appeals court found that this was not appropriate in the case.
Finally, the wife argued that any new trial should be limited to the issues raised on appeal. But because the lower court failed to comply with its requirement for independent findings it found that this was also not appropriate.
For all these reasons, the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded lower court’s judgement. The Court of Appeals also assessed the wife’s costs for the appeal.
