Tatham v. Rogers
2012 WL 3292953
Wash. Ct. App.2012Background
- Rogers and Tatham ended a nine-year intimate relationship; they litigated an equitable division and parenting plan in 2009 before Judge Verser in Jefferson County.
- Trial evidence showed Tatham’s higher earnings and Rogers’ substantial separate property, including a large inheritance; court classified assets as separate or community-like.
- Trial distribution gave 75% to Tatham and 25% to Rogers, influenced by Rogers’ greater separate assets and Tatham’s employment earnings.
- After judgment, Rogers learned of potential bias due to Judge Verser’s associations with Dr. Tatham’s lawyer and obtained a private investigator’s report.
- Rogers moved for relief from judgment under CR 60(b)(5) and (11), asserting appearance-of-fairness violations; judge denied as waived/untimely.
- Washington Supreme Court reversed, held appearance violation supports relief under CR 60(b)(11), and remanded for a new trial before a different judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should recusal have occurred under appearance of fairness? | Rogers contends bias risk warranted recusal. | Tatham argues no recusal was required; facts insufficient for disqualification. | Remand for new trial; appearance violation found, recusal not required as dispositive only for relief. |
| Is CR 60(b) proper for postjudgment relief for appearance-of-fairness violations? | CR 60(b)(11) provides relief from judgments for extraordinary irregularities like appearance violations. | CR 60(b) not applicable or sufficient to vacate here. | CR 60(b)(ll) is appropriate basis for relief due to appearance violation. |
| Was Rogers' appearance-of-fairness challenge waived by delay or trial knowledge? | Delay was reasonable; waiver standard not satisfied given lack of evidence of attorney knowledge. | Waiver applies when grounds were known to counsel before ruling. | Waiver not established; improper basis to deny relief. |
| What is the correct standard to grant relief under CR 60(b)(ll) for appearance biases? | Relief should be granted if risk of injustice to parties exists without new trial. | Relief should be disfavored absent strong showing of prejudice. | Relief granted; risk-of-injustice analysis supports a new trial before a different judge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (U.S. 2009) (due process requires recusal where personal stake materially influences judge)
- Liljeberg Health Servs. Acquisition Corp. v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1988) (recusal and extraordinary circumstances justify relief under catchall rule)
- City of Bellevue v. King County Boundary Review Bd., 90 Wn.2d 856 (Wash. 1978) (appearance of fairness doctrine not constitutionally based; post-judgment relief discussed)
- In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (U.S. 1955) (appearance of bias and judicial removal from proceedings boundaries)
- State v. Post, 118 Wn.2d 596 (Wash. 1992) (appearance of fairness and disqualification standards in Washington)