Price v. Reish
335 Ga. App. 491
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Judge Bensonetta Tipton Lane repeatedly recused from Family Division cases where attorney Lisa West represented a party after West litigated records issues related to Lane’s deceased sister in probate court.
- In Sept. 2013 Lane entered a Standing Order of Recusal as to West; in May 2014 she vacated that standing order and announced she would decide recusal on a case-by-case basis.
- In August 2014 Joel Reish filed a custody-modification petition against Tiffany Price; Price later retained West, who entered an appearance on Jan. 8, 2015 and filed a motion to recuse Lane accompanied by an affidavit describing prior recusal orders and the probate dispute.
- On Jan. 23, 2015 Judge Lane denied the recusal motion and sua sponte vacated West’s entry of appearance, finding West had “hired into a conflict” and engaged in judge shopping.
- Price obtained interlocutory review; the Court of Appeals considered whether Lane complied with the procedural requirements of Uniform Superior Court Rule 25.3 when presented with a recusal motion and affidavit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Lane complied with USCR 25.3 when presented with a recusal motion + affidavit | Price: Lane failed to follow USCR 25.3 and must assign another judge to determine recusal if motion is timely and affidavit legally sufficient | Lane: Could examine motives, judge-shopping, and deny appearance due to hiring into a conflict without assigning another judge to decide recusal | Court: Vacated Lane’s order; under USCR 25.3 Lane was limited to timeliness and legal sufficiency and, if those criteria met, must assign another judge to hear the recusal motion |
| Whether a trial judge may probe the truth or good faith of affidavit allegations when ruling on timeliness/sufficiency | Price: Judge must accept affidavit allegations as true for sufficiency analysis | Lane: Argued facts and motives could be examined to prevent judge shopping and disallow counsel | Court: A judge may not probe truth or motives at this stage; must assume affidavit facts true when assessing sufficiency |
| Whether vacating counsel’s appearance for alleged judge shopping was permissible without recusal-procedure compliance | Price: Such disqualification amounted to ruling on merits without following USCR 25.3 | Lane: Disqualification justified to prevent judge shopping and protect court administration | Court: Premature to resolve judge-shopping or impose disqualification absent proper USCR 25.3 process; remand required |
| Whether this decision absolves or decides misconduct/judge-shopping consequences | Price: N/A (seeking procedural compliance) | Lane: N/A (relied on misconduct reasoning) | Court: Did not decide whether judge shopping occurred; left sanctions/disqualification to judge assigned to hear recusal motion on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayor & Aldermen of City of Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co., 291 Ga. 114 (clarifying that if recusal motion is timely, affidavit sufficient, and facts would authorize recusal, another judge must be assigned)
- State v. Fleming, 245 Ga. 700 (trial judge must limit inquiry to legal sufficiency of affidavit and must not question truth or pleader's good faith)
- Baptiste v. State, 229 Ga. App. 691 (recusal rules not a vehicle for judge shopping; intentional misconduct can justify denial on the merits)
- Horn v. Shepherd, 294 Ga. 468 (trial judge may sanction counsel for improper conduct related to recusal motions)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Young, 322 Ga. App. 348 (disqualification of counsel may be an available sanction for violating disciplinary rules)