TN Divorce Judge Not Required to Recuse Despite Adverse Rulings

Tennessee case summary on recusal of judge in divorce.

Mariel Bentz Rich v. David Tate Rich, Jr.

After five years of marriage, the wife in this case filed for divorce in 2017 in Davidson County, Tennessee.  The parties had one child, who was born in 2014.

The case was assigned to Judge Philip E. Smith, and pretrial hearings were held on issues such as whether the wife was entitled to temporary alimony.  Her request was denied after a hearing at which she believed she was not able to fully present her evidence.  Judge Smith later held that he “unapolagetically and aggressively manages” the docket, but ruled that he was under no obligation to exercise control in a sparing fashion.  The wife made a motion for the judge to recuse himself from the case, but this motion was denied.  She then brought an interlocutory appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

On appeal, the wife argued that the judge’s comments and rulings prejudged a number of issues in the case and limited her ability to present proof at trial.

The appeals court first noted that on appeal, the wife bears the burden of proof to establish that recusal is called for.  It also noted that the right to an impartial tribunal was a fundamental constitutional right.  It also cited the code of judicial conduct which states that a judge should recuse whenever impartiality may reasonably be questioned.

Generally, mere adverse rulings are not grounds for recusal, even if they are erroneous, numerous, or continuous.

In this case, the wife argued that recusal was called for because the judge did not allow her attorney to fully explain the unique financial circumstances of the case.  When the wife answered a question that the attorney believed should be clarified, she was not allowed to give a clarification.

But the appeals court stressed that to prevail, the wife needed to show that there was either a lack of impartiality or bias toward her or her attorney.  The appeals court zeroed in on the fact that in this case, the judge had treated both parties equally during the hearing.

The wife also pointed to the fact that the judge had interrupted her attorney a number of times.  But the appeals court pointed out that a trial court has the inherent authority to control the proceedings, and this authority is very broad.

The appeals court reviewed the transcript and concluded that the trial court had not prejudged any of the issues in the case.

The appeals court then turned to the issue of whether the wife was improperly limited in presenting evidence, and whether the judge should have recused himself for this reason.  But again, the appeals court examined the transcript and concluded that she had ample opportunity to present her evidence.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.

No. M2018-00485-COA-T10B-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2018).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.