Kathryn A. Duke v. Harold W. Duke, III
398 S.W.3d 665
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Duke and Duke, III were divorced in 2009; post-divorce petitions for contempt and modification followed.
- Father timely sought an interlocutory appeal under Rule 10B from the trial court’s August 31, 2012 denial of the August 13, 2012 recusal motion.
- An earlier 2010 recusal motion, based on a prior attorney–client relationship, was denied and not appealed then.
- Rule 10B (effective July 1, 2012) governs post-2012 recusal motions; the court declines retroactive application to the 2010 motion.
- The court’s decision affirms denial of recusal, remands for further proceedings, and discusses timeliness, waiver, and strategic conduct issues.
- Concurrence notes differing views on whether older grounds fall under Rule 10B and emphasizes prospective application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 10B applies to the August 2012 motion | Duke asserts grounds persist under new rule | Court should apply Rule 10B prospectively | Rule 10B applies to post-2012 grounds; 2010 motion not reviewed under 10B |
| Timeliness/waiver of appeal for recusal | Failure to pursue earlier interlocutory appeal should not bar review | Rule 10B governs timing for motions filed after July 1, 2012 | No waiver; Rule 10B prospectively applied; issues reviewed de novo |
| Sufficiency of grounds to recuse based on prior association | Meeting with Speers and prior representation created bias/appearance of impropriety | Prior association alone does not require recusal; no actual bias shown | Record insufficient to establish impartiality concerns; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 228 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998) (prior association with a lawyer is not grounds for disqualification absent other factors)
- State v. Cannon, 254 S.W.3d 287 (Tenn.2008) (adverse rulings alone usually do not establish bias)
- Alley v. State, 882 S.W.2d 810 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994) (adverse rulings do not compel disqualification)
- Davis v. Dep’t of Emp’t Sec., 23 S.W.3d 304 (Tenn.Ct.App.1999) (courts frown on manipulating impartiality issues for strategic advantage)
- Eldridge v. Eldridge, 137 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn.Ct.App.2002) (tests for whether judge’s impartiality could be reasonably questioned)