On Tuesday, August 18, 2022, the Tennessee Court of Appeals dismissed the “Petition for Expedited Recusal Appeal” of Margaret Kathryn Young, seeking accelerated interlocutory review of a trial judge’s recusal under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B or, alternatively, a common law writ of certiorari. The case is styled as ‘Young v. Young’ with case number #CT-1421-21.
In April 2021, Margaret Kathryn Young filed for divorce from her husband of 35 years, Larry Joe Young. In doing so, Ms. Young challenged the validity of an antenuptial agreement that she had signed the day before their marriage. At her request, the circuit court bifurcated the proceedings and set a separate hearing on the validity of the agreement for July 25 of this year.
On July 26, 2022, Ms. Young was cross-examined on a child custody petition that her first husband filed shortly after her marriage to Mr. Young. The judge informed the lawyers that the first husband’s custody petition was filed by an attorney from his former law firm. At the time, the judge had been a partner in the firm. And the judge’s office was situated right next to the office of the lawyer for the first husband. The judge continued by saying that the custody dispute involving his former firm would “have no bearing or effect upon my ability to serve impartially in this case.”
During the July 26 hearing, Mr. Young requested the judge’s recusal, basing the request on the fact that the judge might have been involved in the child custody proceeding between Ms. Young and her first husband. Mr. Young’s counsel explained that he was concerned that Ms. Young might later complain that the judge should have recused himself.
Ms. Young opposed the recusal, arguing that the filing of the child custody petition was irrelevant to the issue before the court—the validity of the antenuptial agreement. And a decades-old representation by a former law partner would not cause a person of ordinary prudence in the judge’s position to question his impartiality.
The order reads:
“Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee creates an exception to the general rule. It offers a party “an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right” from determinations of whether a judge should preside over a case…. But that exception is limited to “an order denying a motion for the judge’s disqualification or recusal or for determination of constitutional or statutory incompetence.” Because this appeal is from a grant of a motion for recusal, Rule 10B is not applicable.”
The order goes on:
“Recognizing the limits of Rule 10B, Ms. Young alternatively requests review under the common law writ of certiorari. Tennessee Code Annotated § 27-8-101 “detail[s] how parties may petition the higher courts for a common law writ of certiorari and when review may be granted.” The writ may be granted if an inferior tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or is acting illegally. But there must be “no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy.” The writ “does not apply to actions governed by the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.” So the writ is not an alternative “when an express provision for an appeal is available.”
The order concluded that:
“Review of a trial judge’s recusal is not available under either Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B or a common law writ of certiorari. So we dismiss the appeal.”
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
