Facts: A couple (“Plaintiffs”) hired another couple (“Defendants”) doing business as a construction company to remodel their home. Plaintiffs later sued Defendants, claiming they paid for remodeling work that was never finished properly.

During a pre-trial motion hearing, the trial judge disclosed that a person Plaintiffs intended to call as an expert witness was a neighbor of his. This neighbor, an expert in construction, had been proposed to support Plaintiffs’ case.

Upon learning of the neighbor connection, Defendants became concerned about the judge’s impartiality. They filed a motion asking the judge to recuse himself from the case. In support, Defendants noted that in a previous unrelated case the same judge had recused himself when this same neighbor (the expert witness)was involved as a self-represented party. The Defendants argued that, by the same token, the judge should recuse himself here if that neighbor was going to testify as an expert.

The trial judge denied the motion to recuse. The judge acknowledged that the witness lived in his neighborhood but found no specific bias or close relationship that would prevent fairness. He explained that merely residing in the same neighborhood with a possible witness, without more, wouldn’t make an average person reasonably question the judge’s impartiality. The judge distinguished this situation from the prior case where the neighbor was actually a party in the lawsuit and representing himself, whereas here the neighbor was just a potential expert witness. Because there was no evidence of any personal relationship or bias, the judge felt it was appropriate for him to continue presiding.

Defendants appealed.

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

Tennessee law requires judges to be fair and impartial. Judges must also avoid even the appearance of bias. For this reason, the Tennessee Rules of Judicial Conduct direct that a judge must disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. This is an objective standard.

In practice, recusal is required whenever “a person of ordinary prudence in the judge’s position, knowing all of the facts known to the judge, would find a reasonable basis for questioning the judge’s impartiality.”

The party asking for recusal bears the burden of proving that the judge has a disqualifying bias or conflict of interest. Importantly, any alleged bias generally must stem from an extrajudicial source, i.e., something outside the courtroom proceedings themselves, rather than what the judge has seen or done during the case.

After applying these principles to this case, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial judge’s conclusion that recusal was not required here:

In this case, the only connection between [Expert Witness] and the trial judge is that they live in the same neighborhood and the trial judge had previously declined to preside over a different matter when [Expert Witness] was a self-represented party. There is no evidence that the trial judge has a personal or even professional relationship with [Expert Witness]. Respectfully, this minimal contact is not sufficient to create an appearance of impropriety or indicate the trial judge would have a bias in favor of [Expert Witness]…. If a judge were required to recuse based on circumstances such as this, or other minor acquaintance with a witness that doesn’t affect a judge’s impartiality, they would be forced to recuse an inordinate number of times. As a result, we cannot conclude that a reasonable person, knowing all the facts known to the judge, would have any reasonable basis for questioning the judge’s ability to act impartially.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.

K.O.’s Comment: Although this isn’t a family law case, I write about it because it’s a useful reminder about where Tennessee courts draw the line on judicial recusal. Just because a judge has a connection to someone in the case doesn’t automatically mean the judge must step aside. The connection must be significant enough that an average person might reasonably question the judge’s neutrality. Being casual neighbors isn’t enough. Judges are people. They live in communities, have neighbors, know other professionals, etc. The law doesn’t require them to live in a bubble. Here, there was no indication of a personal friendship or any interaction beyond possibly a wave in the neighborhood. It makes sense that the court did not see this as disqualifying.

It’s wise to remember that judges are presumed impartial, and the burden is on the party seeking recusal to overcome that presumption with evidence of a real conflict or bias. Reserve recusal motions for circumstances where there is something solid that would make an outsider legitimately question the judge’s fairness.

Source: Nowaczyk v. Daniels, No. M2025-01645-COA-T10B-CV (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, November 4, 2025).

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