Facts: Husband, who was the County Mayor, filed for divorce against Wife.

The first Chancellor assigned to the case recused herself of her own volition, finding there was a conflict of interest and stating, “In order to avoid even the appearance of impropriety with regards to the parties in this case, the Court finds it should recuse itself from any further activity in this case.” The case was randomly assigned to another Chancellor, who accepted the reassignment.

Several motions and proposed parenting plans were filed, a hearing was held on those motions, and an order was entered disposing of the motions.

Two months later, Husband moved to recuse the Chancellor based on the appearance of impropriety arising from the Mayor’s authority over the county budget, which includes items regarding the Chancery Court and Chancery Court clerk.

The Chancellor denied the motion, finding that Husband “waived the issue by failing to raise it in a timely manner.” The trial court further found that “all the facts relied upon by Husband for his request that this court recuse itself were known to Husband at the time of the filing of his Complaint and at all times relevant hereto.”

Husband appealed.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

A party seeking recusal of the trial judge must do so by a written motion filed promptly after the party learns or reasonably should have learned of the facts establishing the basis for recusal. Promptness is mandatory, and its importance is declared at the very beginning of Rule 10B, the Tennessee Supreme Court Rule that governs judicial recusal. Courts frown upon manipulating the impartiality issue to gain procedural advantage and will not allow litigants to refrain from asserting known grounds for disqualification to experiment with the court and raise the objection later when the result of the trial is unfavorable. A delay in asserting the right to an impartial judge will result in waiving a party’s right to question the judge’s impartiality.

The Court took no issue with the trial court’s decision to deny recusal:

Chancellor Jenkins’s order at the end of March clearly accepted the case assignment. [Husband] raised the appearance of impropriety issue at the end of September—six months after the [trial] court accepted the case and two months after the trial court ruled on the conflicting petitions. [Wife’s] response in this Court suggests that [Husband’s] motion to recuse is a “strategic maneuver.” In his Rule 10B petition, [Husband] denies that the issue of recusal is “strategic.” Rather, he maintains that he “did not see the need to bring up the issue since he contemplated an out-of-court resolution of the parties’ divorce.” Strategic or not, [Husband’s] delay in raising the issue is fatal to his cause. [Husband] knew of his budget duties at the time he filed for divorce. He states in his appellate petition that he has denied funding requests from the [] County chancellors in the past. If he felt the issue was or could be a problem, the time to raise it was at the beginning of the case—not six months later and not after a full evidentiary hearing on competing petitions for permanent parenting plans. [Husband] did not raise the issue promptly and therefore, the issue is waived. The Rule 10B petition is denied.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

Source: Harris v. Allen (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Western Section, January 11, 2024).

If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.