Ricky L. Boren v. Hill Boren, PC
557 S.W.3d 542
Tenn. Ct. App.2017Background
- Dispute arose from an Agreement for Future Transfer of Controlling Interest in Hill Boren, P.C.; plaintiffs are attorneys Ricky L. Boren and Jeffrey P. Boyd; defendants are T. Robert Hill and Hill Boren, P.C.
- Chancellor James F. Butler recused himself because of professional ties to plaintiff counsel; Senior Judge Robert E. Lee Davies was assigned and presided thereafter.
- Petitioners moved to recuse Judge Davies alleging (1) an improper ex parte communication between Davies and Butler following a December 20, 2016 lunch, and (2) pervasive bias shown by numerous adverse rulings and procedural conduct.
- Judge Davies denied the recusal motion; Petitioners filed an accelerated interlocutory recusal appeal under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B. The Court of Appeals reviews de novo.
- The record contained no factual support that Butler and Davies discussed substantive matters; Davies disclosed a scheduling call with Butler on the record. Petitioners also delayed nearly ten months after the luncheon to seek recusal.
- The Court of Appeals concluded (1) no improper ex parte communication occurred, (2) Davies applied the correct legal standard, and (3) adverse rulings did not demonstrate bias sufficient to require recusal; the denial of recusal was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an inappropriate ex parte communication occurred between Chancellor Butler and Judge Davies | Butler told Davies something at lunch that prejudiced Davies against Hill and the firm | No evidence showed any discussion of the case; Davies disclosed only a scheduling call and denied substantive discussion | No ex parte communication; claim unsupported by record and untimely—waived |
| Whether Judge Davies applied the correct legal standard for recusal | Davies should have recused if any reasonable doubt existed or if a reasonable person would question his impartiality | Davies applied Rule 10B and the Code of Judicial Conduct standards correctly | Davies applied the correct legal standard; recusal not required |
| Whether adverse rulings and procedural rulings show bias requiring recusal | Numerous alleged erroneous rulings, procedural errors, and reliance on unpublished/criminal authority show bias and prejudice | Adverse rulings alone do not establish bias; bias must be extrajudicial or so pervasive from litigation events as to deny a fair trial | Adverse rulings, even if numerous, did not rise to required level; no appearance of impartiality questioned |
| Whether the recusal motion was timely and factually sufficient under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B | Motion valid despite delay; factual allegations sufficient | Motion lacked specific factual support and was filed nearly ten months after the alleged event—untimely and insufficient | Motion lacked the specificity required by Rule 10B and was untimely; waiver noted |
Key Cases Cited
- Duke v. Duke, 398 S.W.3d 665 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (Rule 10B limits appeal to whether trial judge should have granted recusal)
- Davis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 38 S.W.3d 560 (Tenn. 2001) (recusal standard: reasonable basis for questioning impartiality; adverse rulings ordinarily insufficient)
- Alley v. State, 882 S.W.2d 810 (Tenn. Crim. App.) (bias must be personal and stem from extrajudicial source to require recusal)
- State v. Cannon, 254 S.W.3d 287 (Tenn.) (Code of Judicial Conduct does not require judges to isolate from bar/community; adverse rulings do not alone show bias)