Roger Scott Austermiller v. Penny Smith Austermiller
M2022-01611-COA-T10B-CV
Tenn. Ct. App.Dec 5, 2022Background
- Divorce proceeding in Williamson County between Roger S. Austermiller (Husband) and Penny S. Austermiller (Wife); Chancellor Deanna Bell Johnson presiding.
- At an October 10, 2022 hearing the Chancellor, who also serves as a Recovery Court/TN-ROCS judge, suggested recovery/drug-court options (including TN-ROCS and Recovery Court) after Husband failed a court-ordered drug screen and was charged with bringing contraband into a penal institution.
- The Chancellor ordered Husband to submit to 16‑panel drug screens and to appear for review dates; she commented she would like Husband to participate in Recovery Court but noted Recovery Court is criminal, not domestic.
- Husband moved to recuse the Chancellor, arguing her bench statements evidenced bias and a predisposition to incarcerate him; the Chancellor denied recusal and found the motion was filed for an improper purpose (to delay).
- Husband filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B; this Court reviewed de novo and elected to act summarily.
- Result: the Court affirmed denial of recusal (insufficient evidence that impartiality might reasonably be questioned) but held the trial court erred in finding the recusal motion was filed for an improper purpose; Husband’s motion for a stay was denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Austermiller's Argument | Johnson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Chancellor’s bench comments warranted recusal for bias/appearance of bias | Chancellor expressed a desire to confine Husband to Recovery Court, showing bias and prejudgment on contempt/criminal matters | Comments were efforts to help Husband obtain treatment; remarks referred to criminal Recovery Court (outside chancery jurisdiction) and were not statements of guilt | Denied recusal — objective test not met; comments, in context, did not prompt reasonable person to question impartiality |
| Whether Husband filed the recusal motion for an improper purpose (delay) | Motion was a legitimate preservation of right to impartial tribunal, not a dilatory tactic | Trial court: motion filed to delay entry of two orders and impede litigation | Appellate court: trial court erred — filing was not frivolous or for improper purpose |
| Whether to stay trial-court proceedings pending appeal | Stay preserves status quo and Husband’s rights pending review | Trial court’s orders could be enforced; appeal does not automatically stay | Motion to stay denied as moot given appellate disposition |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Griffin, 610 S.W.3d 752 (Tenn. 2020) (articulates objective, reasonable-person test for recusal/appearance of bias)
- Duke v. Duke, 398 S.W.3d 665 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (party seeking recusal bears burden; appellate review de novo under Rule 10B)
- Eldridge v. Eldridge, 137 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (recusal requires evidence prompting reasonable, disinterested person to question impartiality)
- Boren v. Hill Boren, P.C., 557 S.W.3d 542 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017) (burden of proof on party challenging judge’s impartiality)
- Alley v. State, 882 S.W.2d 810 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. 1994) (defines bias and prejudice as predisposition for or against a party)