Samuel C. Clemmons v. Johnny Nesmith, M2016-01971-COA-T10B-CV

Background

Samuel and Shannon Clemmons (Appellants) were defendants in a Williamson County chancery action brought by Johnny Nesmith (plaintiff); a related circuit court action and a federal case involved overlapping parties/issues.
Appellants filed two motions to recuse Chancellor Michael Binkley (April 2016 and August 2016), alleging: an ex parte contact at a November 2014 holiday event between Judge Binkley (and Judge Woodruff) and defense counsel; untimely rulings/delays affecting discovery; and biased, inappropriate conduct during a May 20, 2016 hearing when Binkley removed Appellants’ children from the courtroom.
Judge Binkley denied the first motion in a May 11, 2016 order (with an attached affidavit) and denied the second motion by written order entered September 21, 2016.
Appellants filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B; this Court initially found procedural deficiencies (Clemmons I) but, after a Tennessee Supreme Court remand, reviewed the merits.
The Court summarized the record, concluded the invoice entry showing a social meeting did not prove a substantive ex parte communication, found delay and some procedural irregularities troubling but insufficient alone to mandate recusal, and determined the May 20 courtroom episode—though heated—did not show pervasive bias denying a fair trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Clemmons)	Defendant's Argument (Nesmith / Trial Court)	Held
Whether an alleged November 21, 2014 ex parte communication required recusal	Invoice entry shows counsel “met” Judges Woodruff and Binkley and later conferred about the case—creates appearance of an improper ex parte contact	Entry only shows social meeting; no evidence the judges discussed the case or received substantive ex parte information	No recusal—record lacks proof the judges received/considered substantive ex parte communications
Whether trial-court delays and missed self-imposed deadlines warranted recusal	Repeated delays (discovery stay, late orders, orders entered while recusal pending) prejudiced Appellants and showed lack of impartiality	Some delays occurred but not of the magnitude or unexplained character required to show appearance of impropriety; trial judge sometimes ruled timely	No recusal—delays troubling but insufficient to show bias or pervasive impropriety
Whether the May 20, 2016 removal of Appellants’ children and the judge’s conduct showed bias	Judge’s heated, arguably improper removal of observers and reprimand of an 18-year-old evidences partiality and inappropriate courtroom behavior	Judge acted to preserve order and reacted to defiant conduct; statements stem from in-court events, not extrajudicial bias	No recusal—judicial conduct, though heated and perhaps improper in procedure, arose from courtroom events and did not show pervasive bias denying a fair trial
Whether filings by court staff and other affidavits, and cumulative effect of events, require disqualification	Post‑hearing affidavits by court staff supporting Nesmith and the cumulative pattern (ex parte + delay + conduct) create appearance of impropriety	Affidavits recount in-court observations; cumulative facts do not establish extrajudicial bias or an utter incapacity to be fair	No recusal—the cumulative record fails to show an "utter incapacity to be fair" or pervasive bias

Key Cases Cited

Bean v. Bailey, 280 S.W.3d 798 (Tenn. 2009) (right to fair trial before impartial tribunal)
State v. Austin, 87 S.W.3d 447 (Tenn. 2002) (purpose of disqualification rules)
Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (need both actual impartiality and appearance of impartiality)
Alley v. State, 882 S.W.2d 810 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (prejudice must stem from extrajudicial source to require recusal)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1994) (distinction between judicial statements from participation in case and extrajudicial bias)
State v. Cannon, 254 S.W.3d 287 (Tenn. 2008) (friendship/acquaintance with counsel alone insufficient for recusal)
In re Bell, 344 S.W.3d 304 (Tenn. 2011) (excessive and unexplained delay can violate judicial conduct rules)