Tracy Darrell Adkins v. Rhonda Forlaw Adkins, M2017-00495-COA-T10B-CV

Background

Wife (Rhonda Forlaw Adkins) and Husband (Tracy Adkins) settled their divorce in mediation (May 2015) by signing a Marital Dissolution Agreement (MDA) and Permanent Parenting Plan. Wife later moved to set those agreements aside.
After extensive discovery, many motions, and a two-day trial, the trial court denied Wife’s motion to set aside the agreements and entered a final decree of divorce on January 7, 2017 (amended January 26, 2017).
Wife then filed a Rule 10B motion (Feb. 8, 2017) seeking recusal/disqualification of Judge Binkley and also asked the trial court to vacate the January orders; the trial judge denied recusal on Feb. 16, 2017 and explained his reasons in a written order responding to five asserted grounds.
Wife filed a Rule 10B interlocutory petition to this Court of Appeals challenging only the denial of the recusal motion; she also asked this court to vacate the trial court’s prior orders (which Rule 10B does not permit on appeal).
The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial judge’s responses and the record, declined oral argument, and affirmed the denial of recusal, remanding for further proceedings. Wife was taxed costs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Adkins)	Defendant's Argument (Adkins)	Held
Whether the trial judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned because of his adverse written orders	The January orders (and their relation to a Dec. 11 order) show bias/appearance of bias after ruling against her	Adverse rulings alone do not show bias; judge presided fairly for 19 months and allowed extensive litigation	Denied — adverse rulings and timing (recusal sought only after adverse decision) do not establish reasonable basis for recusal
Whether the judge improperly relied on Husband’s Proposed Findings (contrary to Dec. 11, 2016 order), creating appearance of impropriety	The court’s findings mirror Husband’s proposed findings, implying the judge considered them despite an order not to	Judge swore he did not consider Husband’s post-trial proposed findings; findings drawn from voluminous record and other pleadings	Denied — judge’s detailed explanation dispelled the appearance of reliance on Husband’s submission
Whether the judge became an advocate or gave improper legal advice by sua sponte ordering Wife’s counsel to produce fee records for upcoming fee hearing	Sua sponte direction to Wife’s attorneys to file fee documentation shows partiality and advocacy for Husband	Courts routinely order counsel to submit fee records; trial court sought comparative data to assess reasonableness — no prejudice to Wife	Denied — routine and proper case-management; objective standard shows no reasonable basis to question impartiality
Whether awarding Husband a divorce on irreconcilable differences (when Husband didn’t specifically request it) shows partiality	Granting Husband the divorce (rather than Wife) demonstrates bias and partiality	Granting a divorce to one party is not evidence of judicial bias; adverse rulings do not alone justify disqualification	Denied — awarding divorce to one party is an adverse ruling, not evidence of disqualifying bias

Key Cases Cited

Eldridge v. Eldridge, 137 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (party challenging recusal must provide evidence prompting a reasonable person to question judge’s impartiality)
Davis v. Dep’t of Emp’t Sec., 23 S.W.3d 304 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (standard for reasonable questioning of judicial impartiality)
State v. Haines, 919 S.W.2d 573 (Tenn. 1995) (a judge’s adverse ruling is not, by itself, grounds for recusal)
Alley v. State, 882 S.W.2d 810 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (bias must be personal, extrajudicial, and not based solely on matters learned in the case)
State v. Cannon, 254 S.W.3d 287 (Tenn. 2008) (numerous or continuous erroneous rulings, without more, do not require disqualification)
Davis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 38 S.W.3d 560 (Tenn. 2001) (recusal cannot be used strategically by litigants unhappy with rulings)
Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (appearance of impartiality is essential to public confidence in judiciary)
State Ex Rel. Wesolich v. Goeke, 794 S.W.2d 692 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990) (prejudice must stem from extrajudicial source to disqualify a judge)