Tracy Darrell Adkins v. Rhonda Forlaw Adkins
M2021-00384-COA-T10B-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Jul 9, 2021Background
- Divorce filed in 2015; trial court approved and incorporated a Marital Dissolution Agreement and Parenting Plan and declared the parties divorced in January 2017.
- Wife filed multiple recusal motions (First 10B in Feb 2017; Second 10B in Nov 2017; Third 10B in Feb 2021); earlier denials were litigated and this Court affirmed denial of the First 10B (Adkins I).
- Trial court awarded Husband $533,278 in attorney’s fees (April 11, 2018 Attorney’s Fees Order); parties later agreed to sell real property and hold proceeds with the Clerk.
- Husband moved to disburse Wife’s share to satisfy the fee judgment; the trial court orally granted the Motion to Rule and the disbursement on Feb 11, 2021 and entered a written order Feb 25, 2021.
- Wife filed the Third 10B (Feb 22, 2021) challenging the judge’s impartiality for several reasons; the trial court denied recusal (Mar 24, 2021). Wife appealed under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B; the Court of Appeals affirmed and awarded Husband appellate attorney’s fees, remanding to determine amount.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband/Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entry of Order while recusal motion pending (Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B §1.02) | Judge violated §1.02 by entering the disbursement order while the Third 10B was pending. | Trial court ruled substantively at Feb 11 hearing (before Third 10B); later signing/filing was administrative and permitted under precedent. | Denied: no §1.02 violation; substantive ruling occurred before the recusal motion and later entry was administrative. |
| Partial recusal (Aug 2017) and effect on later orders | Partial recusal in Aug 2017 should have been complete; later participation tainted subsequent orders and should be vacated. | Wife waited years to press this ground; earlier appeal path failed to confer jurisdiction; timeliness and waiver bars apply. | Denied as to this appeal: court lacked jurisdiction here to re-adjudicate the Second 10B and Wife waived the timeliness requirement for this ground in the Third 10B. |
| Trial judge’s citation to Adkins I (designated Not for Citation) and inclusion of Husband’s response as exhibit | Citing Adkins I (designated Not for Citation) and annexing Husband’s response shows reliance on party-prepared material and evidences bias. | Adkins I as part of the case history may be cited for background; trial court separately addressed each ground and inclusion of opponent’s brief was for context, not wholesale adoption. | Denied: references were historical/contextual and the order reflected the judge’s independent deliberation (Smith standards met). |
| Comments at hearing / acting while case on appeal / appearance of bias | Judge’s November 5, 2020 comments and actions while appeal pending showed partiality; entering orders before appellate mandate was improper and evidences bias. | Comments, read in context, reflected concern about enforceability of judgment and case history; Husband actively sought disbursement; Wife delayed filing recusal to gain procedural advantage. | Denied: statements did not demonstrate extrajudicial bias; many recusal grounds were untimely or meritless; contest over jurisdiction/merits of orders is not reviewable on a Rule 10B interlocutory appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duke v. Duke, 398 S.W.3d 665 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (scope of appellate review under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B and standards for recusal appeals)
- Smith v. UHS of Lakeside, Inc., 439 S.W.3d 303 (Tenn. 2014) (trial-court use of party-prepared orders and requirement that orders reflect the court’s independent judgment)
- Cain-Swope v. Swope, 523 S.W.3d 79 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016) (timeliness requirement for recusal motions under Rule 10B)
- Williams v. City of Burns, 465 S.W.3d 96 (Tenn. 2015) (deference to trial-court credibility findings on appeal)
- Eldridge v. Eldridge, 137 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (standard that recusal requires evidence prompting a reasonable, disinterested person to question impartiality)
- Watson v. City of Jackson, 448 S.W.3d 919 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) (distinguishing judicial impressions formed during litigation from disqualifying extrajudicial bias)
- Bean v. Bailey, 280 S.W.3d 798 (Tenn. 2009) (purpose of recusal rules to prevent prejudgment and preserve confidence in judicial neutrality)
- Chiozza v. Chiozza, 315 S.W.3d 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (discretion to award sanctions or fees for frivolous appeals)