Losing Isn’t Proof Of Bias

The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of a motion to recuse in post-divorce litigation

The essence of Petitioner’s motion for recusal was that Judge Morgan demonstrated bias against Petitioner by repeatedly ruling against him. However, as we explained in Boren v. Hill Boren, PC,

“A trial judge’s adverse rulings are not usually sufficient to establish bias.” Even rulings that are “erroneous, numerous and continuous, do not, without more, justify disqualification.” There is good reason for this proposition: “If the rule were otherwise, recusal would be required as a matter of course since trial courts necessarily rule against parties and witnesses in every case, and litigants could manipulate the impartiality issue for strategic advantage, which the courts frown upon.” 557 S.W.3d 542, 550 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017) (citations omitted).

Petitioner acknowledges that adverse rulings are seldom grounds for recusal; nevertheless, he relies on the limited exception to that general rule that, as stated in Boren, recusal is warranted when “the cumulative effect of the repeated misapplication of fundamental, rudimentary legal principles that favor one party substantively and procedurally.” Id

Conclusion

we acknowledge that in rare situations the cumulative effect of the “‘repeated misapplication of fundamental, rudimentary legal principles that favor[] [one party] substantively and procedurally’ can be the basis for recusal.” Id. at 551 (quoting Krohn v. Krohn, No. M2015-01280-COA-R10B-CV, 2015 WL 5772549, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2015)). However, Petitioner has failed to show that any rulings by Judge Morgan are erroneous or the result of misapplications of fundamental, rudimentary legal principles. Thus, in the context of a recusal motion, he cannot show that bias should be presumed from the cumulative effect of repeated misapplications of fundamental, rudimentary legal principles that favor his adverse parties. See id. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to carry his burden of proof.

(Mike Frisch)