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 made a petition to modify child support in 2020, and this was granted. In 2022, the father filed a petition asking to be named primary residential parent. In early 2023, the father’s attorney informed the mother’s attorney that he was working on some cases with the judge. Ultimately, the mother’s attorney filed a petition to recuse the judge.
While that motion was pending, the State of Tennessee made a motion to modify the father’s support obligation. The trial court found that the father had overpaid, and temporarily reduced the father’s obligation. There was never a ruling on the mother’s recusal motion, nor an order transferring the matter to a different judge. But the matter was heard by a different judge, who modified the parenting plan, naming the father the primary residential parent.
The mother made a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the case had never been transferred to the new judge. After some more post-trial motions, the mother then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The key issue raised by the mother was whether the new judge was properly designated to hear the case. She first argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. But the appeals court viewed the underlying issue as whether the mechanism for changing judges had been properly carried out, and it examined the court rules. While it found that the procedure did not violate Rule 11 of the Supreme Court Rules, it took a closer look at Rule 10B. That rule requires the judge to make a written order granting or denying the request. And the appeals court cited a number of cases for the proposition that those requirements must be strictly followed, and that courts speak only through their written orders.
For this reason, the actions of the lower court were vacated, and the Court of Appeals remanded the case for further proceedings.
No. W2023-01521-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2024).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.
