Casey v. Casey, 2011 OK 46

Pamela Boyd filed for dissolution in July 2003 in Garvin County; the district court, under Judge Virgil Tipton, entered a decree and property division.
On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals remanded to value and apportion major assets, including 366 acres, Yellow Canary shop inventory, and the Tex-Synergy business enhancement, to achieve an equitable total estate division.
Remand hearing on January 2–3, 2008, before Judge Charles Gray; after hearing, Gray took the matter under advisement and then sua sponte recused from a protective order case involving Boyd.
Boyd’s counsel asked Gray to recuse in the divorce case; Gray declined.
While the matter was under advisement, Gray acknowledged a prior criminal matter involving Boyd and stated he could not impartially consider it; he later proceeded to divide the property.
Boyd appealed arguing the trial judge abused discretion by not recusing; the majority held the judge should have recused and reversed/remanded for reassignment to a different judge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial judge err by not recusing in the divorce case	Boyd asserts bias from the protective order case taints the divorce trial	Gray contends no disqualification was required given surface neutrality	Yes; judge should have recused and property division void to be reassessed by another judge

Hearn v. Miller, 168 Okla. 411, 33 P.2d 506 (1934) (impartiality required; appearance matters)
London v. Ogden, 130 Okla. 89, 265 P. 139 (1928) (courts must protect rights by impartial tribunals)
Pierce v. Pierce, 2001 OK 97, 39 P.3d 791 (2001) (burden to show appearance of unfairness; disqualification guidance)
Miller Dollarhide, P.C. v. Tal, 2007 OK 58, 163 P.3d 548 (2007) (when partiality exists, disqualification should occur; appearance of justice standard)
Morissette v. Musgrave, 1940 OK 486, 108 P.2d 123 (1940) (exceptional power to correct error and protect public respect for courts)