Ben C. Adams v. Buchanan D. Dunavant v. Watson Burns PLLC, 674 S.W.3d 871

Buchanan D. Dunavant is owed distributions from two trusts; Watson Burns, PLLC and Bass, Berry & Sims PLC (the Law Firms) claim charging liens and attorney fees from those distributions, while Dunavant’s former spouse and children claim competing interests via settlements approved in probate proceedings.
The attorney trustee filed an interpleader in Shelby County Probate Court because the trust distributions were insufficient to satisfy all claims.
The Law Firms moved to recuse the probate judge, alleging bias based on a 2017 affidavit the judge (then a private attorney/expert witness) filed criticizing Watson Burns’ fee application in a different case.
The probate judge, initially unaware of the recusal motion, granted interpleader, then after a remand denied recusal, ordered partial distributions to the Dunavant children, deemed the Law Firms’ charging lien forfeited (but allowed them to petition for fees), and paused further distributions.
The Court of Appeals reversed the denial of recusal and ordered reassignment; the Tennessee Supreme Court granted review under Rule 10B and reversed the Court of Appeals, holding the judge’s denial of the recusal motion was appropriate and reinstating the probate judge’s decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the probate judge must recuse because of his 2017 expert affidavit criticizing Watson Burns’ fee request	The affidavit shows actual and apparent bias against Watson Burns that undermines impartiality	The affidavit addressed a different case and legal questions; prior statements as an expert before becoming a judge do not require disqualification	Denied recusal: prior expert opinions about a separate matter are not a reasonable basis to question impartiality
Whether repeated adverse rulings in related probate cases justify recusal	The pattern of adverse rulings and procedural actions (e.g., forfeiting lien, distributing funds without hearings) indicate bias	Adverse rulings alone—even if numerous—do not establish bias; judge must remain unless proponent shows factual basis for recusal	Denied recusal: adverse rulings by themselves do not warrant disqualification
Whether the probate judge’s interpleader order and treatment of the firms’ liens created appearance of bias requiring recusal	The interpleader order summarily extinguished liens and made distributions without hearings or answers, showing prejudgment	The recusal review is limited to the recusal order; procedural complaints about the interpleader do not establish objective bias for recusal	Denied recusal: procedural/merits complaints insufficient to create objectively reasonable basis to question impartiality; court declined to decide merits of interpleader rulings

Davis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 38 S.W.3d 560 (Tenn. 2001) (adverse prior rulings or prior assessments of credibility do not alone require recusal)
Cook v. State, 606 S.W.3d 247 (Tenn. 2020) (judicial impartiality standard and objective test for recusal)
State v. Griffin, 610 S.W.3d 752 (Tenn. 2020) (public confidence in judicial neutrality; impartiality principles)
State v. Cannon, 254 S.W.3d 287 (Tenn. 2008) (adverse rulings usually do not establish bias)
Alley v. State, 882 S.W.2d 810 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (erroneous or repeated rulings do not, without more, justify disqualification)
Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (importance of preserving public confidence in judicial impartiality)