EVANS Et Al. v. WILLIAMS Et Al.
341 Ga. App. 226
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- W. Michael Evans (conservator/guardian for beneficiary Nora Evans) filed to modify a trust; trustees Weyman Evans, James Herring, and Billy Williams are appellees.
- Evans filed a motion to recuse Judge Melanie B. Cross accompanied by an affidavit; under USCR 25.3 Cross was required to cease acting on the merits and have the motion assigned for disposition.
- Judge Harry Jay Altman II was appointed to decide the recusal motion and denied it in a brief order stating only there were not adequate grounds for recusal.
- Altman’s order contained no written findings of fact or conclusions of law, no hearing was held, and no responses from appellees appear in the record.
- The trial judge (Cross) issued summary judgment orders after the recusal motion was filed; the Court of Appeals stayed review of those merits pending a valid recusal determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Altman’s order denying recusal complied with USCR 25.6 requiring written findings of fact and conclusions of law | Evans: Altman’s order lacks the required written findings and conclusions, so it must be vacated | Herring: Alternative justifications exist for denial; Evans waived requirement by not requesting findings or objecting | Court: Vacated Altman’s order for failure to provide written findings/conclusions; remanded for a legally sufficient order |
| Whether appellate review of summary judgment is available despite pending/invalid recusal order | Evans: Summary judgments issued by Cross after the recusal motion are void while motion pending | Appellees: Implicitly that summary judgments stand or should be reviewed now | Court: Could not reach summary judgment merits because Cross’s authority was suspended once the recusal motion was filed and no valid disposition existed; remand directs proper recusal ruling first |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. Reish, 335 Ga. App. 491 (trial judge must accompany recusal ruling with written findings and conclusions)
- Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co., 291 Ga. 114 (ruling on recusal motion must be accompanied by written findings of fact and conclusions of law)
- Sherman v. Dev. Auth. of Fulton County, 320 Ga. App. 689 (conclusory statements are insufficient as findings or conclusions)
- Horn v. Shepherd, 294 Ga. 468 (judge must cease acting on merits while recusal motion with affidavit is pending)
- Gillis v. City of Waycross, 247 Ga. App. 119 (if recusal denied properly, subsequent rulings may be re-entered and appealed)
- Morgan v. Propst, 301 Ga. App. 402 (procedural pathway for re-raising errors after a valid recusal disposition)